We are at War !!!

This is a discussion on We are at War !!! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I have to admit, I've been glued to the screen absorbing everything posted on the pending SCOTUS ruling. One thing that has been missed, or ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: We are at War !!!

  1. #1
    New Member Array rjstorlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Las Vegas
    Posts
    9

    We are at War !!!

    I have to admit, I've been glued to the screen absorbing everything posted on the pending SCOTUS ruling.
    One thing that has been missed, or at least not received the discussion needed is the fact that we are at war.
    Less than eight years ago we suffered the worst attack by an enemy on United States soil in my lifetime.
    Something others have said could never happen with our military power.

    Is this a time to be limiting the ability for our citizens to protect the United States if needed?

    Al-Qaeda is not the only enemy of the United States

    How long will it take for other enemies of the United States to realize that bringing the battle to our soil is possible?

    I pray that the nine people entrusted to protect the Constitution rule properly. I hope you all do the same.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array goawayfarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fork Union, Virginia
    Posts
    2,690
    As somebody else has already said.....

    The US military is at war.......the US citizens are at the mall!
    We as a country are in a pretty sad state. The majority rule is now mob rule. A lot of our citizens are standing around with their hand out, wanting something or someone to give them 'free' stuff. The problem is government is trying to give them 'free' stuff to win their vote.

    We are having our freedoms eroded by all branches of government. The legislative & executive push thru policies that cost the citizens who pay taxes to give more & more to others for the 'freebies' they've promised.

    When the people do try to get something worthwhile passed, we run into opposition from all points. If you go out & say the sky is blue....You'll find a bunch of people who disagree.

    When good legislation is passed then the judiciary comes along & over turns it.......Then you get legislation from the bench, even from the vaunted SCOTUS. They've made some really bad decisions that we are stuck with. From Roe v. Wade (abortion) to Kilo (Eminent Domain) to this past weeks lunacy giving rights to NON-CITIZEN enemy combatants & the asinine decision about illegal immigration.

    Just wait until next week when the Heller decision comes out & doesn't go our way......

    I read last week where it doesn't help that the swing vote on the Supreme Court is Stevens where someone said:
    .....this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice.
    Don't be surprised when the decision is WRONG!
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith

    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    1,555
    Think positive ,it's going our way it has too.Preliminary case talks sounded encouraging.Let's hope for the best! If not we will come out swinging!

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by rjstorlie View Post
    I have to admit, I've been glued to the screen absorbing everything posted on the pending SCOTUS ruling.
    One thing that has been missed, or at least not received the discussion needed is the fact that we are at war.
    Less than eight years ago we suffered the worst attack by an enemy on United States soil in my lifetime.
    Something others have said could never happen with our military power.

    Is this a time to be limiting the ability for our citizens to protect the United States if needed?

    Al-Qaeda is not the only enemy of the United States

    How long will it take for other enemies of the United States to realize that bringing the battle to our soil is possible?

    I pray that the nine people entrusted to protect the Constitution rule properly. I hope you all do the same.
    YOUR SO RIGHT.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Quote Originally Posted by rjstorlie View Post
    I have to admit, I've been glued to the screen absorbing everything posted on the pending SCOTUS ruling.
    One thing .... is the fact that we are at war.
    Less than eight years ago we suffered the worst attack.... on United States soil ......

    Is this a time to be limiting the ability for our citizens to protect the United States if needed?

    Al-Qaeda is not the only enemy of the United States

    How long will it take for other enemies of the United States to realize that bringing the battle to our soil is possible?

    I pray that the nine people entrusted to protect the Constitution rule properly. .......
    Shame to say it's about 5 to 4 in their favor.....
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620
    Let's face it folks this country is heading closer to the "Socialistic States".
    That's where the Liberals think that they know what is best for you better than you do.
    Our "Founding Fathers" must be wondering what is happening to their country!
    This father is wondering the same.

  8. #7
    Member Array xd.40sub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    magna, ut
    Posts
    307
    excellent point.
    do what you can with what you have where you are at (theodore roosevelt)

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rjstorlie View Post
    I have to admit, I've been glued to the screen absorbing everything posted on the pending SCOTUS ruling.
    One thing that has been missed, or at least not received the discussion needed is the fact that we are at war.
    Less than eight years ago we suffered the worst attack by an enemy on United States soil in my lifetime.
    Something others have said could never happen with our military power.

    Is this a time to be limiting the ability for our citizens to protect the United States if needed?

    Al-Qaeda is not the only enemy of the United States

    How long will it take for other enemies of the United States to realize that bringing the battle to our soil is possible?

    I pray that the nine people entrusted to protect the Constitution rule properly. I hope you all do the same.
    First of all, we are not at war. If you can find and post a credible reference as to where congress declared war, as the constitution calls for.

    Secondly, unless the government is willing to let people carry handguns on airplanes, which the opposite is the case, we can't even carry pocket knives any more, the 2A is a mute point as regards to the attack we suffered on 9/11. That all came from about without regard to the Courts.

    Thirdly, regardless of what the makeup of the Supreme Court is, as long as the President, Congress, and the state governments are willing to make laws that limit the average Joe from exercising his or her 2A right, we really shouldn't be worried about Al Qaeda. Since we haabout 140,000 of our troops and about 150,000 other contractors in Iraq, where Al Qaeda wasn't before we went overr there, tell me this are you more protected here with our forces over there? That would be like saying we should send our police departments to central amercica to protect ourselves from ms13 instead of keeping them here in our neighborhoods imo. I wasn't scared on 9/11, I was neither on an airplane or in a major city.

    Think about this. What would happen if some terrorist organization, whether domestic or foreign decided to place 50 teams of snipers like what happened in the beltway, in the 50 largest cities in the US. Are we prepared for that? How many people millions of people would be affected by that type of terrorist attack.

    There are 10's of thousands of people who came here legally on visas that have over stayed their visit, precisely the way the attackers that came here from Saudi came and attacked us on 9/11, that are not being addressed. Let us not forget that we allowed the people that attacked us on 9/11 into our country, we provided them flight training at our schools in our country, and we allowed them on our airplanes that day.


    So tell me this, are we really at war. My answer is no.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #9
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    First of all, we are not at war. If you can find and post a credible reference as to where congress declared war, as the constitution calls for.
    We are absoultely at war.

    Here you are:

    Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

    Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

    Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

    Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

    Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

    Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

    (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

    (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
    In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

    (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

    (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

    (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

    (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

    (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.


    So tell me this, are we really at war. My answer is no.
    It is obvious we are at war.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,119
    There's War and then there's war. Either way somebody is getting shot.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  12. #11
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,398
    A rose is still a rose by any name...war, non-war, no war...makes no difference what you color it...we are there!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,731
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    First of all, we are not at war. If you can find and post a credible reference as to where congress declared war, as the constitution calls for.
    The only credible reference needed is the fact of what's really going on. The military is engaged in two countries on a "war" footing, using all tools of war, with solidiers dying, over a multi-year period, in situations where the enemy is treating their end of it as a war. If that isn't war, I don't know what is. That Congress hasn't formally declared it simply shows the degree of hypocrisy. Doesn't change the fact, though, of what's really going on.

    ... 50 teams of snipers ... in the 50 largest cities in the US. Are we prepared for that?
    You're right. Generally speaking, no, we're not. But we'd survive it. Many folks would instantly change to be more on-guard, capable in their own defense. of course, many would simply look for the nearest hole in which to bury their heads in the sand.

    How many people millions of people would be affected by that type of terrorist attack.
    By 50 teams of snipers? Millions? Peripherally, perhaps. In a sense, it might be a good thing, for what it would do to tighten up people's loose conception of their own responsibilities in this world.

    There are 10's of thousands of people who came here legally on visas that have over stayed their visit ...
    Yup. Definitely a problem.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    What goawayfarm said +1...
    I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth.--Steve McQueen

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    I tend to take the perspective of the grunts on the ground. Yeah, we're at war.

    The difference this time is that the bulk of the population can avoid it, if they wish. All they have to do is put "Support the Troops" stickers on their cars and, to follow the President's advice, go shopping.

    I, too, find it odd that some people wish to take away the greatest homeland security advantage we have -- an armed citizenry. But then, there are lots of folks who believe that all we have to do is love our enemies and everything will be okay. I do not love our enemies and am glad when they die.

    I am still baffled at why there haven't been any more terrorist incidents in the U.S. With all the talk of sleeper cells, etc., I wonder, if they're here, what are they waiting for? 50 sniper teams would indeed be a huge disruptive element. So would blowing up a few trains, or pipelines, fuel storage depots, or even grain siloes. Lots of soft targets out there.

    While it would be incredibly disruptive, it would not, in my opinion, be our demise. As has been shown in the past, our people can and do coalesce for the common defense. There'd be tough times, but we're strong enough at our core to withstand attacks and endure.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    "We" are not at war, except to the extent that some of us may actually be physically involved in combat. For instance, I am not at war. Our "country" is at war, meaning our government (politicians and soldiers) is at war. It is highly likely that our soldiers would not be at war were it not for our government's (politicians) imperialistic and interventionist activities.

    It is very important to draw a distinction between people (eg. individuals vs. politicians) and nebulous groups (eg. "country" and "government").

    Thus, "we" are not at war, unless "we" are either part of the political class or the military class.

    I, for instance, have never been in combat in my entire 30 years, despite the numerous military "adventures" our comrade politicians have initiated in that time.

    The politicians use talk of "security" and "terrorism" as a convenient way to continue to erode our liberties and confiscate our money and property.

    Additionally, even if the US had no military at all, we'd still likely be able to defend our homeland. North Vietnam used an insurgent military and PR strategy to defeat the largest military the world has ever known.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

the president has authority under the constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international te

Click on a term to search for related topics.