OT We aren't protected
 

For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)


US Military May Not Be Ready for Attack
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Printable VersionEmail This Article del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Reddit Slashdot
Fark
Newsvine
Google Bookmarks
(23) Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial
(01-31) 08:25 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --


The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.


Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were
nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and
Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for
the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.


The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes
in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.


The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not
have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap
that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."


"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them
trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold
Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though
there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ...
There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in --
you're either ready or you're not."


In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern
command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military
team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.


"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical,
biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not
as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that
we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be
harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."


Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.


The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for
Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little
progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the
homeland.


"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said
the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the
much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in
place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any
international crisis.


He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must
move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of
the U.S. military.


The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department
must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force
that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation,
respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.


Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on
two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative"
other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement
the active duty forces both at home and abroad.


Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is
a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they
are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.


Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations,
Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The
commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a
cost analysis, he said.


In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said
that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct
active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That
recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the
military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.


"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.


Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will
reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders
on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops
-- to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands.
Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs
will be met.

OT We aren't protected
 

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their
legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


Were those the 'legal owners' shooting at the soldiers who were there to
help?
--
John H


No, John. Is this the first you've heard of this?

OT We aren't protected
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


Were those the 'legal owners' shooting at the soldiers who were there to
help?
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)




The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Jan 31, 2:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

You always have to put a qualifier in there to try and make the Bush
regime sound good, don't you? No one said anything about a "nuclear
attack from Russia, China........."
We aren't ready for a decent conventional attack neither, can you
guess why?
One word: Iraq.


The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

Iraq didn't have the weapons. We knew he didn't via UN reports. What
is worse, is he didn't have the delivery means and we knew it.

That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Jan 31, 2:52*pm, wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:38*pm, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:24:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the
country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or
training they need for the job, according to a report.

No we aren't, and luckily there aren't any countries lining up their
divisions to conduct such an attack. We will *never* be completely ready
for a nuclear attack from Russia, China, or any other country with a
delivery means.

You always have to put a qualifier in there to try and make the Bush
regime sound good, don't you? No one said anything about a "nuclear
attack from Russia, China........."
We aren't ready for a decent conventional attack neither, can you
guess why?
One word: Iraq.

Or it could be left over from the last big attack the US military
suffered... The Clinton administration....;)




The best we can do is be prepared and take the offense whenever we see the
threat of a catastrophic attack forming. We did this in Iraq. After years
of the Democrats talking about the threat and doing nothing, Saddam talking
about his WMD, and various worldwide intelligence agencies stating that
Saddam had WMD, we attacked.

Iraq didn't have the weapons. We knew he didn't via UN reports. What
is worse, is he didn't have the delivery means and we knew it.





That's the way it's supposed to work. We shouldn't wait for a catastrophic
attack on our soil.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OT We aren't protected
 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry about.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:27:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:56:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
For those who think we are being protected from terrorists (or
terists.....)

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and
Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered
response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few
hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of
about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would
include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending
on the type of incident.


I wonder which "wave" will be responsible for stealing guns from their
legal
owners, as they did during Katrina.


That would be the liberal wave, should they win the presidency.


We're talking about the past here. The police were ordered to collect
guns.
Is this the first you've heard of it???


I'm talking about billary and bobama being anti-gun. Is this the
first you've heard of that?


That's not the subject of this discussion. You're looking for the class
that's four doors down on the right side of the hall.


The discussion was over with my last post.

QED
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.


My quote came from one of your sources above. You didn't read them, oh
perfect one?
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the
House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed
over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were
recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry
about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the
House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.


My quote came from one of your sources above. You didn't read them, oh
perfect one?
--
John H


Not all of them. I have about 30 articles. Obviously, the one you read
completely used that information to illustrate the absurdity of the excuse.
Luckily, the House of Representatives didn't fall for those excuses.

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:20:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the
House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed
over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were
recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry
about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the
House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.


My quote came from one of your sources above. You didn't read them, oh
perfect one?
--
John H


Not all of them. I have about 30 articles. Obviously, the one you read
completely used that information to illustrate the absurdity of the excuse.
Luckily, the House of Representatives didn't fall for those excuses.


Maybe you should just hush. Posting **** you've not read kinda says
something about your 'debating' capabilities, doesn't it?

Doug, go look up the 'Christmas Goose' colloquialism. It would look well
with your outfit.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:20:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the
House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters
responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed
over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were
recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry
about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the
House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.


My quote came from one of your sources above. You didn't read them, oh
perfect one?
--
John H


Not all of them. I have about 30 articles. Obviously, the one you read
completely used that information to illustrate the absurdity of the
excuse.
Luckily, the House of Representatives didn't fall for those excuses.


Maybe you should just hush. Posting **** you've not read kinda says
something about your 'debating' capabilities, doesn't it?

Doug, go look up the 'Christmas Goose' colloquialism. It would look well
with your outfit.
--
John H


OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:22:33 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:20:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:01:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:08:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Earlier, you pretended to wonder about the gun confiscations in New
Orleans.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Even though you implied that the cops only took guns from thugs, the
House
of Representatives thought otherwise:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...d=202&issue=55

Articles about the crimes committed by the police:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/0506r/
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.stateline.org/live/detail...ntentId=198836

NRA effort to put an end to the crimes committed by police:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177



"Some police officers told reporters that the confiscation order was
issued
after Army, Coast Guard and police helicopters were fired upon while
flying
over the city. It is reasonable to assume that the shooters
responsible
for
these attacks used illegal firearms, which would not simply be handed
over
when the police and National Guard knocked on the door.

There certainly was no shortage of guns available to criminals. In the
wake
of the storm, more than 1,000 guns were stolen from gun dealers in
Alabama,
Louisiana and Mississippi. Only about 130 of these weapons were
recovered.

(The Associated Press also reported that some police officers asked if
they
could borrow guns from citizens. The officers explained that they were
outgunned during running street battles with armed criminals.)"

Sounds like neither the police nor the Guard had anything to worry
about.
--
John H


What bull**** left wing source did you get that from? Fortunately, the
House
of Representatives didn't fall for that bull****.


My quote came from one of your sources above. You didn't read them, oh
perfect one?
--
John H


Not all of them. I have about 30 articles. Obviously, the one you read
completely used that information to illustrate the absurdity of the
excuse.
Luckily, the House of Representatives didn't fall for those excuses.


Maybe you should just hush. Posting **** you've not read kinda says
something about your 'debating' capabilities, doesn't it?

Doug, go look up the 'Christmas Goose' colloquialism. It would look well
with your outfit.
--
John H


OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?


I have an answer for that, but it would be something Harry might say and
far beneath my dignity.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...

OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could
get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?


I have an answer for that, but it would be something Harry might say and
far beneath my dignity.
--
John H


What a soldier you are. You can't answer a simple question about armed
robbery?

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:06:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .

OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could
get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?


I have an answer for that, but it would be something Harry might say and
far beneath my dignity.
--
John H


What a soldier you are. You can't answer a simple question about armed
robbery?


RML
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:06:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..

OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could
get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?


I have an answer for that, but it would be something Harry might say and
far beneath my dignity.
--
John H


What a soldier you are. You can't answer a simple question about armed
robbery?


RML
--
John H


Pansy!

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:46:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:06:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

OK. Maybe you're right. But, I have one last question:

Do you think it was OK for the police to collect ALL the guns they could
get
their hands on during the Katrina mess?


I have an answer for that, but it would be something Harry might say and
far beneath my dignity.
--
John H


What a soldier you are. You can't answer a simple question about armed
robbery?


RML
--
John H


Pansy!


Harry!
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey
the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960
replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5
October 1962).


.......unless I'm John H.

OT We aren't protected
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act
of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment
effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?

OT We aren't protected
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act
of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment
effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?




One can be sure that a spineless lump of defecation like Herring did
precisely as he was told.

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:03:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey
the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960
replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5
October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


Where did you fight, Doug, at the local school board meeting?
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act
of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment
effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?




One can be sure that a spineless lump of defecation like Herring did
precisely as he was told.

You're so cool, Harry.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was televised.

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:03:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will
obey
the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code
of
Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960
replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5
October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


Where did you fight, Doug, at the local school board meeting?
--
John H


How does that question relate to your apparent approval of armed robbery,
carried out by soldiers and cops?

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Feb 1, 6:34*pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act
of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment
effective 5 October 1962).

......unless I'm John H.

And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?

One can be sure that a spineless lump of defecation like Herring did
precisely as he was told.

You're so cool, Harry.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fighting with words is not cool.. I remember when I was a teen we used
to get drunk and box in the back yard, no gloves;) So one day this
friend of mine says to me wanna' go? I said ok cool and we headed for
the back yard. He was behind me when we were going down the back steps
and he says to me "hey, I hear you do a little boxing?" I said yeah a
little.. When I woke up from what I understand was a few seconds later
he was standing over me with a glass of "medicine" for me and he says,
"yeah, well I do street!" We all had a good laugh, I never turned my
back on him again....;)

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.


You know it all, Doug.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.


You know it all, Doug.
--
John H


What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that
I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and
the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code;
Act
of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with
amendment
effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?




One can be sure that a spineless lump of defecation like Herring did
precisely as he was told.

You're so cool, Harry.
--
John H
That's rich John. A draft dodger using the word spineless on another person.

OT We aren't protected
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?


One can be sure that a spineless lump of defecation like Herring did
precisely as he was told.

sort of like you an Ullico?

OT We aren't protected
 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.


You know it all, Doug.
--
John H


What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.


You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10,
US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the
best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who
said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea
of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American
is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.


You know it all, Doug.
--
John H


What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone
again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.


You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H


Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you pegged.
When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first load to go. If
I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.

OT We aren't protected
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10,
US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.

And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?


Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the
best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who
said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.

Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H

You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea
of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American
is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.

You know it all, Doug.
--
John H

What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone
again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.

You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H


Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you pegged.
When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first load to go. If
I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.




Hehehe. You go, guy!

OT We aren't protected
 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:45:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.. .

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10,
US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.


And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?



Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the
best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who
said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.


Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H


You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea
of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American
is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.


You know it all, Doug.
--
John H


What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone
again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.


You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H


Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you pegged.
When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first load to go. If
I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.


RM second to the L to you.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:53:28 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10,
US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.

And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?


Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the
best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who
said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.

Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H

You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea
of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American
is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.

You know it all, Doug.
--
John H

What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone
again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.

You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H


Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you pegged.
When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first load to go. If
I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.




Hehehe. You go, guy!

My gosh, two of you!

Now let's see, just what am I supposed to point at the front door - a
pistol? 30-30? 12 Gauge? Oh my, I can't remember.
--
John H

OT We aren't protected
 

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:53:28 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States
and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10,
US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.

And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?

Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But, earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so the
best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member who
said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens. I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.

Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H
You selected the text which you thought presented support for the idea
of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When American
is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.

You know it all, Doug.
--
John H
What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell anyone
again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.

You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons from
Harry?
--
John H

Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you pegged.
When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first load to go. If
I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.



Hehehe. You go, guy!

My gosh, two of you!

Now let's see, just what am I supposed to point at the front door - a
pistol? 30-30? 12 Gauge? Oh my, I can't remember.

Harry used to be the guy who said only those with tiny dicks owned
handguns. I am not sure why Harry likes to talk about male genitalia so
much, nor why he decided he need to shot beer cans and stumps.

I would think someone who considered himself an environmentalist, would
not want to spread lead all over the wilderness negatively impacting the
wildlife. But then again, we are talking about Harry.

Now he is high fiveing someone who is endorsing the concept of genocide
for those with different political philosophy.

OT We aren't protected
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:53:28 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:40:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:54:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:37:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and
defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign
and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United
States and
the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to
regulations
and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title
10, US
Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in
1789,
with
amendment effective 5 October 1962).


......unless I'm John H.

And where does that say you have to obey an unlawful order?

Bill, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't say that. But,
earlier in
this
discussion, John presened what he obviously thought was
justification
for
cops & soldiers robbing citizens: Lots of guns were stolen, so
the best
thing to do is repeat the crime by stealing them from citizens.

I actually saw an interview with just one National Guard member
who said
there was something "odd" about doing this to American citizens.
I
suspect
he was ridiculed, disciplined or shot after that interview was
televised.

Doug, you're the one that posted the 'justification' which you
later
referred to as right wing trash or some such thing.

Is it that hard to keep your stories straight?
--
John H
You selected the text which you thought presented support for the
idea of
stealing guns from citizens. You approve of armed robbery committed
by
soldiers and cops. You are an enemy of the constitution. When
American is
run correctly, you will be managed out of existence. You're a
mindless
robot, John. Hopefully, your children aren't aware of this.

You know it all, Doug.
--
John H
What a robot you are, John. Do America a favor: Don't ever tell
anyone again
that you served in the military. You're the worst possible example of
a
soldier. You probably would've enjoyed being at My Lai.

You know it all, Doug. You're getting quite the mouth. Taking lessons
from
Harry?
--
John H

Harry's a lightweight. You know that. I, on the other hand, have you
pegged. When the cleanup happens, you will hopefully be in the first
load to go. If I lived closer, I'd be honored to help.


Hehehe. You go, guy!

My gosh, two of you!

Now let's see, just what am I supposed to point at the front door - a
pistol? 30-30? 12 Gauge? Oh my, I can't remember.

Harry used to be the guy who said only those with tiny dicks owned
handguns. I am not sure why Harry likes to talk about male genitalia so
much, nor why he decided he need to shot beer cans and stumps.

I would think someone who considered himself an environmentalist, would
not want to spread lead all over the wilderness negatively impacting the
wildlife. But then again, we are talking about Harry.

Now he is high fiveing someone who is endorsing the concept of genocide
for those with different political philosophy.


Political philosophy??? Since when is approving of armed robbery a
political philosophy? Try that line if you're ever being interviewed for
jury duty.