• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New Sheriff in Town? "Oliver North takes on red flag laws"

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
OLIVER NORTH THREW HIS LT. AT MELI UNDER THE BUS, HE BLAMED THIS LT. I THINK HIS NAME WAS, IF MEMORY SERVES ME,WAS KILEY MAY NOT BE SPELLING IT RIGHT,BUT BLAMED HIM FOR THE MASSACRE WHEN NORTH GAVE THE LT. A DIRECT ORDER WHEN THE LT. QUESTIONED AN EARLIER ORDER. NORTH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COURT MARSHALED , STRIPPED OF HIS COMMISSION AND GIVEN A DISCHARGE OF OTHER THEN HONORABLE, IN MY OPINION. THIS IS FROM PAST MEMORY
with the utmost respect jammer, your memory is not serving you well...

While Ollie North served and was in the Conflict, i can find no substantiation he was involved in the My Lai Massacre.

Lt Calley the only individual out of 14 officers whose UCMJ conviction was upheld on appeals and was patrol leader who reported to Capt Media, who was acquitted by UCMJ.

So now jammer, I must now wonder the true purpose of your posting such obviously false information about LTC Ollie North, USMC, Retired, on this site?

Reported.
 
Last edited:

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
133
OLIVER NORTH THREW HIS LT. AT MELI UNDER THE BUS, HE BLAMED THIS LT. I THINK HIS NAME WAS, IF MEMORY SERVES ME,WAS KILEY MAY NOT BE SPELLING IT RIGHT,BUT BLAMED HIM FOR THE MASSACRE WHEN NORTH GAVE THE LT. A DIRECT ORDER WHEN THE LT. QUESTIONED AN EARLIER ORDER. NORTH SHOULD HAVE BEEN COURT MARSHALED , STRIPPED OF HIS COMMISSION AND GIVEN A DISCHARGE OF OTHER THEN HONORABLE, IN MY OPINION. THIS IS FROM PAST MEMORY
March 1968, when My Lai Massacre occurred, Oliver North had just graduated from Annapolis and been commissioned 2Lt., in command of nothing, not even his life.

Your “Kiley” was probably Lt.2 William Calley

I HOPE THAT YOU, jammer, SHOUT YOUR APOLOGIES AS LOUDLY AS YOU SHOUTED YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION LIE! You might better fly the Stainless Banner as your ‘avatar’ than the Battle Flag.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Back to the video.

The video states that people who present a danger to themselves or to others should not have firearms, but only after a court has found them so. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance.

The video states that RPOs should be used to remove firearms from people found to be dangerous to themselves or to others, but only after due process. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance, but only if they mean true due process. Before the firearms are removed, the accused needs to have his day in court, protected from an arbitrary State by counsel.

I wish the NRA had been stronger in stating what they meant by “due process”, but I have no problem with their stated positions on these two issues. I have major problems with other NRA positions, like their support for mandatory background checks. Too many people have their Rights infringed by this system that fails to stop bad guys from getting firearms.
____

Jammer, please don’t shout. I will leave the criticism of the shouted content to the previous two posts, both of which did the job well.
 

bbMurphy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
71
Location
Springfield, VA
... Before the firearms are removed, the accused needs to have his day in court, protected from an arbitrary State by counsel.
Agreed. Also remember that due process requires that the accused must be able to face the accuser. If the accuser can't substantiate their claim and it proves to be false, then the accuser should be required, at a minimum, to pay all legal and court costs incurred by the accused. (IMO).
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Agreed. Also remember that due process requires that the accused must be able to face the accuser. If the accuser can't substantiate their claim and it proves to be false, then the accuser should be required, at a minimum, to pay all legal and court costs incurred by the accused. (IMO).
Yes. At a minimum. I started a thread earlier about false accusations. False accusers should face penalties at least equal to the penalties the accused might have faced.

In a Free Society, such as ours is intended to be, accusers must be accountable for their accusations. We have moved steadily away from that fundamental principle.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
657
Location
Kentucky
Yes. At a minimum. I started a thread earlier about false accusations. False accusers should face penalties at least equal to the penalties the accused might have faced.

In a Free Society, such as ours is intended to be, accusers must be accountable for their accusations. We have moved steadily away from that fundamental principle.
Glad you agree.

Every state in the nation has a law that prevents, a person adjudicated as a danger to self or others by a trial, from possessing firearms. That person normally is involuntarily committed to a treatment facility.

There is NO NEED FOR A FED STATUE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

That said. What is being proposed has no due process involved . just allegation, rumor, a cops upset stomach or fortunetelling.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
Yes. At a minimum. I started a thread earlier about false accusations. False accusers should face penalties at least equal to the penalties the accused might have faced.

In a Free Society, such as ours is intended to be, accusers must be accountable for their accusations. We have moved steadily away from that fundamental principle.
Eye95, sorry no amount of wishing or stating it is or shall be the reality is Americans do not live, real or perceived, in a 'free society' whatsoever!

American citizens lack the deliberate freedom to reach their potential especially since they lack the obtain the necessary to authority over their dominion as well as the necessary resources, e.g., financial etc.

Further due to educational entities greed our citizens have racked up 1.5+/- TRILLION debt of student loans, thus burdening the citizens further as it keeps them reaching their potential.

The BOOMERs, nawll, except the autocratic Americans, everyone is struggling to financially survive as medical costs, basic cost of living, etc., shatters citizens, young & olde, perspective of ever reaching their potential.

While theorists have propagated the concept of a "Free Society" their efforts shall never reach fruition due to citizen's reliance on the government to assure we have SNAP, ADAC, section8 housing, ad nauseam.

Eye95, please continue your sojourn on your soapbox for retribution for those casting falsehoods, oh wait, like you were doing for Ollie North, or Biden whom you call him a pig, or Jessie …

oh dear should we call the law on you for your degrading commentary to shame these individuals in the court of public opinion...?

hummm?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
More trolling from our resident troll.
Alas eye95, your impulse control is fading as are your recollections since you do not recognize this outburst type of petulant behaviour is what led to your hiatus years ago!

There is absolutely no rationale for your out of the blue childish kindergarten playground insulting name calling!

But, i will inquire if you are alright as this irrational angry behaviour seems to be getting worse!
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
728
Location
MO, USA
The video states that people who present a danger to themselves or to others should not have firearms, but only after a court has found them so. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance.

The video states that RPOs should be used to remove firearms from people found to be dangerous to themselves or to others, but only after due process. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance, but only if they mean true due process. Before the firearms are removed, the accused needs to have his day in court, protected from an arbitrary State by counsel.
Encouraging ERPOs with due process is like encouraging Marxism with true equality and human rights. It hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to ever happen. Marxism is not about true equality and human rights. ERPOs are not about due process. Both are about raw, immediate exercise of power.

With due process, it's fairly unlikely for local or state guv to enact an ERPO. This is due to the inescapable law of CAUSE and EFFECT. Getting around due process and giving guv more "tools" for power is the reason (the CAUSE) for wanting ERPO in the first place.

I'm not aware of any real-life shootings caused by a lack of ERPO. Instead, what happened in Florida was government abuse of power and disdain for existing law by agreeing to end the "school to prison pipeline" and ignore crimes and problems involving certain groups of young people. This allowed the to-be-shooter to continue despite repeated incidents. He was free to continue because officials deliberately ignored the law, not because they lacked tools.

We are not guaranteed absolute safety; only a chance at liberty, if we are smart and hold onto what we have. Nor would chipping away at that liberty make us any safer at all. It's fake, and a trap that great men have already warned us about.

ERPO is all about removing due process, not ensuring it. The talk of encouraging implementation of ERPO with all the due process and fine print is (for want of a more polite real-world term) BS or Ballistic Statistics as I call it here. ERPOs may happen, the due process and fine print ain't ever gonna. Therefore NRA is promoting an ambiguous stance on an issue that will cause us net harm.

ERPO deserves and requires 100% firm consistent opposition, not ambiguity and fine print. It's an issue that can only be won by strong opposition. NRA has chosen a very weak and conflicted stance. This, in addition to their distinction of helping get the bump stock ban started. Literally NRA either started or was early in supporting 2/3 of the gun control "Triad" of last year.

Therefore, I'm against NRA's approach on both these issues, and likewise against Eye's MoreGuvPower Lite stance on RPO. The Constitution limits power for a reason. I'm an NRA member, and usually a big fan of Eye95 too. But ideas are important. This is what makes or breaks us. Support liberty 100% and ENTIRELY shun the fake traps that offer quite a bit more safety for just a little freedom, or that claim to successfully promote two self-contradictory items. More power for the guv unfortunately means fewer protections for you and me.

The other big question is how the heck can we really effect change in the NRA? I'm also with the GOA and heartily recommend supporting and promoting them or a similar org with uncompromising positions. But I would like to see the NRA either grow that muscle finally, or else focus on their wonderful membership paraphernalia and make way for an uncompromising org to take the lead on 2A policy.
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
66
Location
, ,
PERHAPS IF YOU WERE THEIR AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY, MAYBE THAT IT'S YOUR MEMORY THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CONFUSION, IF YOU WERE NOT THEIR THEN THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT NORTH WAS A MAJOR AT THAT TIME NOT AN LT. I WILL DO SOME SERCHING FOR THE FACTS AND IF I'M WRONG I'LL APOLOGIZE IF NOT WRONG, THEN YOU ALL CAN.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
PERHAPS IF YOU WERE THEIR AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY, MAYBE THAT IT'S YOUR MEMORY THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CONFUSION, IF YOU WERE NOT THEIR THEN THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT NORTH WAS A MAJOR AT THAT TIME NOT AN LT. I WILL DO SOME SERCHING FOR THE FACTS AND IF I'M WRONG I'LL APOLOGIZE IF NOT WRONG, THEN YOU ALL CAN.
Again with the extreme misinformation

Reported..
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
PERHAPS IF YOU WERE THEIR AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY, MAYBE THAT IT'S YOUR MEMORY THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CONFUSION, IF YOU WERE NOT THEIR THEN THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT NORTH WAS A MAJOR AT THAT TIME NOT AN LT. I WILL DO SOME SERCHING FOR THE FACTS AND IF I'M WRONG I'LL APOLOGIZE IF NOT WRONG, THEN YOU ALL CAN.
May I suggest that you post in the following fashion:

Perhaps if you were there [not their] at that time in history, [“Maybe” here is redundant.] it’s your memory that may have caused the confusion. If you were not there [not their], then there [correct usage] is nothing else to say. I believe that North was a Major at the time, not an LT. I will do do some searching [not serching] for the facts, and if I’m wrong, I’ll apologize. If I’m not wrong, then you all can.
Others have corrected your errant facts, I won’t add to that. I am just hoping that you will stop shouting. I suspect that many other posters, like me, are put into a less receptive mindset after reading a post that shouts at us.

We all look forward to your apology. Please do so in lower case, with capitalization only where required. Thank you.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,537
Location
here nc
May I suggest that you post in the following fashion:



Others have corrected your errant facts, I won’t add to that. I am just hoping that you will stop shouting. I suspect that many other posters, like me, are put into a less receptive mindset after reading a post that shouts at us.

We all look forward to your apology. Please do so in lower case, with capitalization only where required. Thank you.
Most excellent eye95 as it seems you anointing yourself as forum etiquette and grammar overseer is good....

But a query...like your wishy washy vague discussions in your preemptive thread....how ya going to enforce your edicts against members?

Oh eye95, as etiquette and grammar overseer...i wish to report for you to correct most skosh there needs to be spaces between the forum rules listing, as well as a new rule about members anointing themselves in public.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,823
Location
White Oak Plantation
All upper case don't bother me...and reading those words certainly did not sound louder in my noodle. :rolleyes:

Sometimes it really is the very insignificant things that get some folks all worked up...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No one is worked up. At least I am not. Just sharing some advice about how to get others to assign credibility to one’s words.

I don’t think that you are getting worked up.
 

bbMurphy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
71
Location
Springfield, VA
PERHAPS IF YOU WERE THEIR AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY, MAYBE THAT IT'S YOUR MEMORY THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE CONFUSION, IF YOU WERE NOT THEIR THEN THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, AND I BELIEVE THAT NORTH WAS A MAJOR AT THAT TIME NOT AN LT. I WILL DO SOME SERCHING FOR THE FACTS AND IF I'M WRONG I'LL APOLOGIZE IF NOT WRONG, THEN YOU ALL CAN.
Nope. He wasn't there. Here is his early military career...

Oliver North got his 2LT commission on June 5, 1968 upon graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy
After Basic, he served in Vietnam as a Platoon Commander and then Liason Officer with the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd Marine Divsion from November 1968 - November 1969.

My Lai happend on 16 March 1968

He had absolutely nothing to do with My Lai as he was still in school at the Naval Academy when it happened.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
133
Another potential source of jammer’s confusion; North appeared as a character witness for a LCpl accused in the Son Thang Massacre, saying that Herrod had previously saved his life.
 
Top