What if it passes?

[OC for ME]

This has been cleared up before by a moderator, hopefully Grapeshot will be along to clear it up for you. If I can find a mod's post on this subject I will post it for you. You have been around long enough to know the protocol on this.

The Forum Rules are what they are. The application of any one or more of those rules to a specific post, or series of posts, is at the discretion of the owners and their appointed moderators.

Rule Five clearly applies only to citations of law because it is written as such. Calls, under Rule Five, to prompt a member to provide a cite for a opinion or to provide a cite for a "non-rule of law" claim may be echoed by a moderator or one of the site owners, or it may not. The owners, moderators, and members all agree, I think, on when Rule Five applies.

In every case of the application of Rule Five, that I am aware of, it has been to call for a citation to a "rule of law" or be held in contempt of Rule Five. Will a moderator or owner prompt B92FSL to provide a cite for the posts in question? I will not hazard a guess. The real question is what shall they do to B92FSL if she refuses to provide a cite, ban her?

B92FSL has demonstrated that opinions of her held by the membership, staff, and ownership mean nothing to her. What B92FSL has been careful to do is to not anger those who wield the "ban hammer."

You have been around long enough to know this regarding B92FSL.

 

[WalkingWolf]

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Where did I say anything about banning her? I called her out to back up her statements she claimed as real(fact). Some of you really need a course in reading comprehension.

 

[OC for ME]

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Where did I say anything about banning her? I called her out to back up her statements she claimed as real(fact). Some of you really need a course in reading comprehension.

See red text above.

Cherry-picking a member's words from a post is a no-no here on OCDO, it is especially egregious to cherry-pick Forum Rules. You are one of the most ardent critics of those who cherry-pick your words, and rightfully so.

As to your claim, that I claimed, that you called for B92FSL to be banned.....gibberish. Read my statement(s) again and you will, or may, note that I clearly identified the context in which the word "ban" was used and is to be used.

In every case of the application of Rule Five, that I am aware of, it has been to call for a citation to a "rule of law" or be held in contempt of Rule Five. Will a moderator or owner prompt B92FSL to provide a cite for the posts in question? I will not hazard a guess. The real question is what shall they do to B92FSL if she refuses to provide a cite, ban her?

You can claim, that I claimed, that you called for her banning from OCDO, but your claim does not make true your claim, simply because you claim it, that I claimed that you called for B92FSL to be banned.

As can clearly be read from the below:

B92FSL has demonstrated that opinions of her held by the membership, staff, and ownership mean nothing to her. What B92FSL has been careful to do is to not anger those who wield the "ban hammer."

You obviously know enough about B92FSL, and her writing style, to recognize that it would be a most egregious act on the part of B92FSL to receive a blow from the "ban hammer."

 

[WalkingWolf]

See red text above.

Cherry-picking a member's words from a post is a no-no here on OCDO, it is especially egregious to cherry-pick Forum Rules. You are one of the most ardent critics of those who cherry-pick your words, and rightfully so.

As to your claim, that I claimed, that you called for B92FSL to be banned.....gibberish. Read my statement(s) again and you will, or may, note that I clearly identified the context in which the word "ban" was used and is to be used.

You can claim, that I claimed, that you called for her banning from OCDO, but your claim does not make true your claim, simply because you claim it, that I claimed that you called for B92FSL to be banned.

As can clearly be read from the below:You obviously know enough about B92FSL, and her writing style, to recognize that it would be a most egregious act on the part of B92FSL to receive a blow from the "ban hammer."

And you fail to read "back up your claim". She could use law, or research, or reliable media to back up her claim. That is all part of that rule. As for banning, that is the last thing I want for most people that hold opposing political opinions, or any other opinions. They do more harm to their cause by NOT being banned. But I can and do answer their ridicules posts, and call them out by all means allowed by the rules. I hope BL sticks around for a long time, her posts are informative on the progressive mindset. One of their tactics when there is no facts is to make shitt up.

 

[Murphy]

I've known this for years. the concept/goal started before Obama, but it became clear to me almost immediately after Obama was first elected president.
the real question is how far will it go before the general public starts to see it and understand it too. my guess is: after it's too late

How far? As long as "Dancing With The Stars!" is on tv and people keep occupied with Kim Kardashian getting knocked up, they will pay no attention to "That man behind the curtain"....

Ooooooh! Look!!! Dancing with the Stars is on!!!!!!!

 

[OC for ME]

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Where did I say anything about banning her? I called her out to back up her statements she claimed as real(fact). Some of you really need a course in reading comprehension.

See red above.

And you fail to read "back up your claim". She could use law, or research, or reliable media to back up her claim. That is all part of that rule. As for banning, that is the last thing I want for most people that hold opposing political opinions, or any other opinions. They do more harm to their cause by NOT being banned. But I can and do answer their ridicules posts, and call them out by all means allowed by the rules. I hope BL sticks around for a long time, her posts are informative on the progressive mindset. One of their tactics when there is no facts is to make shitt up.

Isolating a single phrase to fortify your premise is cherry-picking. B92FSL was not citing a rule of law or legal issue that would invoke scrutiny by the site owners or moderators for a Rule Five violation.

Though, I guess you could glom onto the "ect." portion of Rule Five to support your claim that it is a forum rule violation to not provide a cite for any claim posted by a member. It is "good manners" to "cite to authority" when requested to do so regardless of the subject matter of the claim. The courtesy of providing a citation should be extend to be sure that any thread comports with the objectives of the site owners.

Firearm owners are inpart to blame. Coming out with the same ol solution: more firearms.

B92FSL seems to be claiming that firearm owners always provide the same solution to every issue re firearms, to the exclusion of all other possible solutions, that would mitigate the question/premise of the OP, and that is.....more firearms.

Or, at a minimum, that firearm owners only provide lip service to other possible solutions to a issue beyond the typical gun culture knee-jerk reaction of "more firearms." But, I am inferring all of this from the words cited above, and I could be completely incorrect in my inference.

The above B92FSL comment only proves that B92FSL is guilty of a syntax violation, as are we all from time to time.

Your call for B92FSL to cite the source of her opinion is laudable and I concur that she should explain her reasoning for holding that opinion. And yet, the call for a cite is a futile endeavor, considering that B92FSL has already confirmed that she will not provide a cite in a response to one of your earlier posts.

 

[unreconstructed1]

look at it this way: if 'bama gave an order to a specific group of military people saying "go to the town of *** and shoot to kill every gun-owning citizen who isn't waiting outside holding their unloaded/secured guns out to donate to the US government, also shoot to kill ANYone who tries to slow down the forfeiture of all weapons".

As divided and partisan this country is, I would say that there would be more following those orders than you would care to admit. The population in this country are divided along deep fracture lines, and you don't think that the FED would use that to their advantage? they have sent the military across the globe chasing boogeymen and ghosts. Our military is already knocking in doors in Afghanistan and Iraq, believing that their actions are "for America". We fly drone strikes in neutral countries like Palistan, killing their citizens, children included, and they are made to believe that it is for the good of America. Those drone pilots, in small, windowless containers observing the world through a drones remote gunsights, will it matter that they are killing Americans?

We have been conditioned to believe that our own countrymen are our enemy anyway, will it be that different for the soldier to pick up that gun that he has carried for years and turn it in one more target? Our soldiers have been trained to follow orders explicitly. The American population has been told that it is unpatriotic, and unamerican, to question the actions of the military, regardless of who it is they are killing. In truth, I believe that many, if not most, soldiers would blindly follow their orders, and many American citizens would blindly support them for fear of being "unamerican". All the while the ghosts of Nuremberg can be heard hollowly echoing the cold stale defense "I was just following orders".

 

[moriar]

To those whom say they would take up arms to fight,

Will you?

How do you fight something that no matter what you say or do will turn it against your cause, take 1, they will take 3 back from you?

How would you communicate in this fight? Carrier pigeon?

US is alot different than libya, or egypt.

IMO 4/5ths of the population are pacifist, or will believe that these are "isolated incidents" and the incidents will be branded terrorists.

 

[beebobby]

I get the impression that many "patriots" don't realize that they will be shooting at United States armed forces when they decide to try and start their little insurrection.

 

[Keylock]

I get the impression that many "patriots" don't realize that they will be shooting at United States armed forces when they decide to try and start their little insurrection.

I'd be more inclined to sabotage their fuel supply lines so their machines grind to a halt, destroy rail lines bring coal down from Wyoming and other coal fields to shut down the power grid, etc. And as a trucker, I'm seriously doubtful 3.5 million drivers are going to leave their families behind at home undefended just to bring the groceries and supplies needed by the fed.gov troops.

Doesn't take much to grind the machine down without ever picking up a firearm. The Soviets learned that lesson.

 

[Jeff. State]

I get the impression that many "patriots" don't realize that they will be shooting at United States armed forces when they decide to try and start their little insurrection.

I guess it depends who shoots at who first?


If the US Armed Forces are going door to door enforcing anything this Govt. legislates, they're gonna wish they were back in Afghanistan.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'd be more inclined to sabotage their fuel supply lines so their machines grind to a halt, destroy rail lines bring coal down from Wyoming and other coal fields to shut down the power grid, etc. And as a trucker, I'm seriously doubtful 3.5 million drivers are going to leave their families behind at home undefended just to bring the groceries and supplies needed by the fed.gov troops.

Doesn't take much to grind the machine down without ever picking up a firearm. The Soviets learned that lesson.

The military machine is tied closely to civilians. It cannot function without forcing/imposing their will even on the liberal and progressives in the population. Britain found this out over 200 years ago.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I get the impression that many "patriots" don't realize that they will be shooting at United States armed forces when they decide to try and start their little insurrection.

When the revolution started all inhabitants of the colonies were British subjects, so they were firing on their own. That is why the constitution is worded the way it is. Those soldiers have a decision to make should that time ever come.

 

[Jeff. State]

[/SIZE]Those soldiers have a decision to make should that time ever come.

That needed some emphasis.

 

[shastadude17]

We have been conditioned to believe that our own countrymen are our enemy anyway, will it be that different for the soldier to pick up that gun that he has carried for years and turn it in one more target? Our soldiers have been trained to follow orders explicitly. The American population has been told that it is unpatriotic, and unamerican, to question the actions of the military, regardless of who it is they are killing. In truth, I believe that many, if not most, soldiers would blindly follow their orders, and many American citizens would blindly support them for fear of being "unamerican". All the while the ghosts of Nuremberg can be heard hollowly echoing the cold stale defense "I was just following orders".

I get the feeling a lot of people on here haven't been in the military, at least not recently... It's hard enough getting people to leave their families to show up for state active duty when we have hurricanes. You think most national guardsmen are going to leave their families to fight for a federal government that has been screwing them, sending them on deployments, and then screwing them again when they get home? I can only speak for myself and the guys in my unit, but I'd be willing to bet you'd have AWOL soldiers on a massive scale simply not reporting to their units. You have enough people not reporting, you're simply going to have a simply combat ineffective organization.

Also, people say "Well they may send units from the west coast to police the east coast"....I also fail to see how in today's day and age this would be effective. In active duty units you have people from all across the country, who went to basic training and advanced schools and made friends from all across the country, who have family from all across the country, who keep in touch on Facebook with all of their loved ones from ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

The people have the power...even if they don't want to believe it. Our military would be completely ineffective against its own people.

 

[motoxmann]

The people have the power...even if they don't want to believe it. Our military would be completely ineffective against its own people.

and back to basics; our military is comprised of "its own people" [Americans].

we do have a very powerful military, capable of many many things. but only IF they ALL follow orders. a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. and the longer the chain, the weaker the chain is effectively because it also has to support its own weight.
and even still, our military has been overpowered time and time again by patriots of various countries with much less training and experience.

where there is a will there is a way.

one could even argue that if only 1 person in every military unit were to secretly deny orders and act upon patriotism defening the actual people of this country, every unit could be brought down almost simultaneously. because every unit is a team, and for the team to be effective, there has to be trust. so now there is the question of how effective each individual unit could be knowing that there is a lack of trust, and each person is possibly acting solely, with simple hopes of others following command

 

[unreconstructed1]

The people have the power...even if they don't want to believe it. Our military would be completely ineffective against its own people.

I never said that citizen resistence couldn't be effective, I merely said that a dissident citizenry couldn't count on military defections to aid the populace. Just as the colonists expected French support "in a few days", and Confederates expected British recognition to be "pending", expectations kill.

At the first battle of Manassas, many felt that the conflict would be over in a couple of weeks. Confederate forces at that battle were so confident in that belief that they missed an opportunity to advance almost to the gates of Washington itself by failing to follow the retreating Union forces. The reason: they wanted to allow the Union to "save face" since the war conflict was only expected to last a couple of weeks. That decision could have ended a war early that eventually killed 650,000 soldiers.

unbridled optimism has a negative effect upon operational readiness.

What I have doubts about are the determination of the average American to withstand the long, hard conditions that a guerrilla campaign would produce. I also doubt that many soldiers would defy orders from a commander based solely upon a constitution that many of them don't understand, as is the general state of the entire citizenry.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

That is not what you posted BL. You posted it was real, not that it was a real opinion. So we are back to the fact that it is in your mind and not fact. If you believe it is a fact then back it up with citations!

I told you that I don't have to offer a citation....it is a fact, or my fact, both are correct and require no citation.

 

[rushcreek2]

The future can only be viewed through the "reliability" of the crystal ball.

The present operates precariously - almost undetected - somewhere between the past and the future.

The past of course is viewed through collective reflections of lessoned learned the hard way.


The current occupier of the White House is a dillussional narcistic maniac, who I am convinced sees himself as a virtual re-make of Abraham Lincoln.

This is cause for alarm.

He has no regard for the U.S. Constitution's restraints upon federal powers - particularly HIS own perceived unlimitted powers.

I expect the very worst from this man for as long as he is PERMITTED by the Congress and the courts to issue his audacious executive orders with the stroke of a pen.

Whatever transpires from here on will depend in major part upon the fortitude of members of Congress , or the Court to stand up to this virtual dictator.

Both of those institutions have thus far failed us.

I view the unfolding events to portend the coming of a much needed reset of the extra-constitutional transgressions of all three branches of this federal government.

Some of us have seen a preview of this scenario play out during the 1990's . This time it will be different because a mad man is involved.

Significantly THIS TIME the federal beast is imploding from the financial weight of its excesses.

When the fiscal porch lights go out in Washington, D.C.- there will still be 50 NOT SO UNITED States that will have to work together for the collective good to some extent.

The result will essentially be two estranged families of states closely resembling the current political map. Some true BLUE.....some true RED......some yet to be decided.

They will have to agree to disagee on many issues remaining that were never within the constitutional pervue of the federal government in the place.

 

[shastadude17]

I also doubt that many soldiers would defy orders from a commander based solely upon a constitution that many of them don't understand, as is the general state of the entire citizenry.

I don't doubt it one bit. People are willing to risk ******* hot on a drug test in the military, and that's a one way ticket to a less-than-honorable right now. Shooting at a man who looks different than you, speaks a different language than you, takes a piss by lifting up his robe and squatting on the side of the road, and you've been brainwashed to believe killed thousands of Americans ten years ago is different than shooting at someone who could very well be your next door neighbor.

People, American service members are not French Foreign Legionnaires who gave up their identity, don't write home, and have sworn allegiance to being a badass robot for 5 years. We talk to our friends and families every day through social networking. We are very much aware of the aches and pains of today's economy, despite getting a nice paycheck the 1st and 15th of every month and having full benefits. When mom and dad have to sell their house because taxes are too high and they can't pay their mortgage anymore, you know about it. When your childhood best friend gets arrested at college for having a plant in his pocket, you hear about it. When grandpa has to sell his gun collection containing the .22 you learned to shoot with because of some asinine gun control legislation, it pisses you off. We are not North Korean drones who are unaffected by the economic and political situation in this country right now. Wake up. We are citizens of this country too, and everything that happens affects us as well.