Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marines discharge sergeant for Facebook posts
Associated Press ^ | April 25, 2012

Posted on 04/25/2012 11:34:36 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

SAN DIEGO (AP) - The Marine Corps said Wednesday it has decided to discharge a sergeant for criticizing President Barack Obama on Facebook.

The Corps said Sgt. Gary Stein will be given an other-than-honorable discharge for violating Pentagon policy limiting speech of service members.

(Excerpt) Read more at wvva.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: garystein
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2012 11:34:38 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
But this Facebook post is just fine with CIC and USMC...

Photobucket

2 posted on 04/25/2012 11:36:56 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (democrats are like flies, whatever they don't eat they sh#t on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I think to harsh. Discharge but with Administrative, maybe a general. OTH is really bad. No decent job at all.


3 posted on 04/25/2012 11:37:40 AM PDT by napscoordinator (VOTE FOR NEWT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I’d still follow Sgt. Stein up a hill. I wouldn’t follow Obi across a golf course.


4 posted on 04/25/2012 11:38:42 AM PDT by donozark (The key to winning the Vietnam War was not Vietnam, but Laos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The article says he got an OTH discharge. Not as bad as a Dead Duck or Big Chicken Dinner, but still not something you want to put on a resume. It’s good to be passionate about your politics, but stupid to ruin your life over it. He knew what the rules were regarding politics and in the military. He chose to disregard those and now he’s paying the consequences.


5 posted on 04/25/2012 11:40:05 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The posting: “Screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him.”

Now, as regards following orders the set in question is “all orders,” which must be the set of lawful orders union the set of unlawful orders; there is no obligation to follow unlawful orders, so then how is this a dischargeable offence?

For saying, “screw [SUPERIOR]”? If that is the case then I think there is quite a misnomer in the UCMJ, specifically “uniform” for it cannot be denied that a not-insignificant portion of soldiers/marines will (at some point) say “screw [X]” where X is some superior.

In any case, I find it intriguing how the Pentagon/DoD, deriving its authority from Congress, can limit the exercise of free-speech when that power is itself denied to Congress.


6 posted on 04/25/2012 11:47:00 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

What are the rules he broke?

He had a disclaimer saying that his site was not associated with the USMC.

What rule did he break? Show it to me.


7 posted on 04/25/2012 11:48:56 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Article 134 for being an obtuse s***bird for starters.

9 years and he was still a Sergeant. That in and of itself was reason enough to RIF that pogue.

8 posted on 04/25/2012 11:55:43 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

I'm sure he was counseled, yet continued.

9 posted on 04/25/2012 12:03:38 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

What does Article 134 say?


10 posted on 04/25/2012 12:04:25 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“Other-than-honorable” usually means “General” which reverts to “Honorable” after six months of ‘clean time’ out of the service, or at least, that is the way it used to be.


11 posted on 04/25/2012 12:08:36 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xone

ACtually I read an article when this story first came out which pointed out that he had twice been told what he was doing was OK because he had a disclaimer on his site saying that it was not associated with the USMC.

Saying that you will not obey unlawful orders is the height of discipline and good order - and that was what was previously listed as being what he said that got him in trouble. (To be truthful, this particular article is so poorly-written, I’m not sure whether what they put in quotes is directly from this guy or not. The whole article is clear as mud).

Refusing to confront an illegal foreign enemy combatant in the White HOuse would bring MUCH discredit upon the armed forces, so those refusing to address this are the ones in violation of Article 134.

And yes, the point at which he got into trouble was when he mentioned Obama’s ineligibility. Maybe he should be glad he got off with his life. The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party didn’t...


12 posted on 04/25/2012 12:11:21 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

13 posted on 04/25/2012 12:20:17 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Add this to the growing list of examples showing that Military Leadership is more loyal to Dear Leader than to the Constitution.


14 posted on 04/25/2012 12:21:38 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The Corps said Sgt. Gary Stein will be given an other-than-honorable discharge for violating Pentagon policy limiting speech of service members.

Pentagon Policy? Sounds political to me; what law did he violate?

What of the UCMJ recently revised by progressives to embrace and promote homosexual sex?

15 posted on 04/25/2012 12:24:06 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The best thing this Marine can do now, is run for Congress now.


16 posted on 04/25/2012 12:27:03 PM PDT by Trueblackman (I would rather lose on Conservative principles than vote for a RINO candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I don't like or support the current occupant of the White House. I don't believe he is eligible, and know that he is the worst trainwreck for a president that we have ever had.

That said, this Marine is an idiot for doing what he did. Only in a world of no discipline would one get away with it. I don't know if he was offered a chance to stop what he was doing, as his OIC, I would have recommended it. This kind of discourse is something for over beers at the Club, not for social media.

read an article when this story first came out which pointed out that he had twice been told what he was doing was OK because he had a disclaimer on his site saying that it was not associated with the USMC

No doubt from 'sea lawyers'.

Saying that you will not obey unlawful orders is the height of discipline and good order

That isn't a surprise, attaching that statement when commenting about your CIC is what is problematic. Like it or not, there hasn't been a finding by competent authority thet the current douche in the White House is ineligible. It isn't within the purview of military members to make one. Thankfully, we don't have military coups daily like some African/Central American countries. A Marines' job is to be ready to fight and fight when ordered. Political commentary is a job for retired Marines.

Refusing to confront an illegal foreign enemy combatant in the White HOuse would bring MUCH discredit upon the armed forces, so those refusing to address this are the ones in violation of Article 134.

Hyperbole.

17 posted on 04/25/2012 12:30:05 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"What rule did he break? Show it to me."

As a member of the armed forces (whether in uniform or out of uniform) you cannot make public statements criticizing the commander in chief. A number of generals of gotten retired over this issue through the years. What makes this case a little unique is that it was a sergeant. However, the rule still applies. It disrupts the good order and discipline of the armed forces to have the troops openly criticizing their commander in chief in a public forum. He should have just kept it at grumbling with his buddies.
18 posted on 04/25/2012 12:35:39 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xone
I'm sure he was counseled, yet continued.

If you're correct (very possible but by no means certain,IMO) then a less than honorable discharge may well be appropriate.If not,then counseling should have been the first step by the chain of command.

19 posted on 04/25/2012 12:40:05 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

I don’t know who found out about his postings, or how his command was made aware of them. I have no doubt, however, that when the command was made aware, that he was counseled. Relying on the advice regarding the disclaimer no doubt contributed to his continuing. At that point he was (and should have been) hosed. I think the OTH had more to do with his response to the counseling than his postings on FB. Stupid is hard to fix, obdurate stupidity even harder.


20 posted on 04/25/2012 12:51:11 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Well the “unorganized militia” is looking for a few good men.
Let’s hear from “Oath Keepers” There certainly ought be several PATRIOT groups willing to keep this Patriot busy .


21 posted on 04/25/2012 12:52:21 PM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xone

Clearly the officer’s oath can never be kept. The military will always be just as corrupt as the one who leads it. Just a fact of life; better to accept it.

I’m praying that God will let our end come quickly and with relatively little suffering for the innocent. It’s coming; there is no one willing to stop it.


22 posted on 04/25/2012 12:55:53 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
There certainly ought be several PATRIOT groups willing to keep this Patriot busy .

Everyone needs a good weather report.

23 posted on 04/25/2012 12:56:39 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
If you want to be in the military then keep your political opinions to your self. If you are in the military and cant do that then get out...its a simple concept that has served our country and our military for a couple hundred years
24 posted on 04/25/2012 12:57:34 PM PDT by montanajoe (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

What happened to the military folks who criticized Joe Bite-Me (the acting President, according to the 20th Amendment)?


25 posted on 04/25/2012 1:00:41 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Clearly the officer’s oath can never be kept.

By that I guess you mean that every officer violate the rest of his oath when he makes an independent judgement regarding the fitness of the political leadership of the country. Is that correct? Or is this more hyperbole?

I’m praying that God will let our end come quickly and with relatively little suffering for the innocent. It’s coming; there is no one willing to stop it.

I pray for that as well, but for different reasons. We have a political process in this country, use it and quit crying about hoping some military officer will save you from your fellow citizens. Be a citizen, the ballot box and the soap box haven't been exhausted. The cartridge box is still full, but not required as yet.

26 posted on 04/25/2012 1:04:37 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Somebody posted the guidelines for political speech for military personnel when this issue first surfaced and political discourse is not forbidden in any way. What is forbidden is wearing your uniform while you do it, or doing it when publicly representing the US military. That’s why Stein was twice given the all-clear for what he was doing - since he had a disclaimer saying that his site was not associated with the US military.


27 posted on 04/25/2012 1:05:43 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xone

Tell me exactly how an officer is able to “protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic”. Give me specifics. If there was a foreign or domestic enemy (and at this point we don’t know for sure which it is) acting as commander-in-chief, what would a sworn officer be able and required to do to protect the US Constitution? Specifically.

If it can’t be done then whoever administers oaths to officers right now needs to be jailed for entrapment.

As for political processes, tell me who owns the company who counts the votes - the only position which counts - and what I can do to make sure that any political process obeys any laws whatsoever.

I have 3 nephews in the USMC - 2 of them officers. I’m not crying for myself. If I’m crying, it is for them.

I’m working my tail off trying to save this country and if you don’t know that by now, then you need to start asking some people about it.


28 posted on 04/25/2012 1:11:39 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

I can’t believe that this warrants and OTH. When I was in the Navy I had several criminals that I couldn’t get OTH’s for despite them being guilty of theft and fraud. I would think once this has died down a bit that he would be able to appeal the disposition and get it upgraded to general.


29 posted on 04/25/2012 1:11:46 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
A Marine is a Marine 24/7/365/forever.

That's the facts and if his superiors say he's out he's out.

I don't have any respect or tolerance for anyone in uniform who brings dishonor to the fine men and women we have serving this nation.

30 posted on 04/25/2012 1:22:08 PM PDT by montanajoe (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Our military has become political.

It is the epitome of being gullible, to think that an enlisted person is going to be fairly and judiciously assessed.

An example of the political double standard.

All of the homosexual military members who violated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Do you really believe they were all tossed as this guys was?

I know they weren’t, because some of the scumbags were on the news in uniform. A much clearer violation of the said Article, this man is accused of violating.


31 posted on 04/25/2012 1:34:25 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If there was a foreign or domestic enemy (and at this point we don’t know for sure which it is) acting as commander-in-chief, what would a sworn officer be able and required to do to protect the US Constitution? Specifically.

More hyperbole. Since you have no 'specific' facts, there are no 'specific' actions. In general, the officer is charged to fulfill whatever his MOS requires of him.

If it can’t be done then whoever administers oaths to officers right now needs to be jailed for entrapment.

Please put out the fire on your head! The military in this country is under civilian political control. They are not independent contractors. Don't like it, pass a Constitutional amendment to change it.

I have currently have members in all branches, Officer and enlisted and spent 21 years in the Corps myself. This debate isn't their job, and I'd bet that your nephews agree. They vote, they are participating in the process. That is their duty at this point.

I’m working my tail off trying to save this country

Great, continue, this particular path (military) isn't the way. Do you hammer you nephews about taking their oaths? Do you share your vision of an officer revolt with them? I'd be interested in their response if you do.

As another poster has said (paraphrased), if you want to be vocal about you political views, then get out. If you are in talk about it with your buddies, stay out of print and when required STFU.

32 posted on 04/25/2012 1:36:41 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
"Our military has become political...."

Be that as it may, if you want to serve then serve and shut up...

The military and military life is not, nor should it be, for everybody. If politics is more important to a person than their love and fidelity to this country they should not serve..

33 posted on 04/25/2012 1:42:05 PM PDT by montanajoe (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

I don’t accept your premise that this man didn’t love and have fidelity to his country.

He also qualified his statement that was the focus of the charge.

“Stein later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.”


34 posted on 04/25/2012 1:46:33 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Gay State Conservative
From the article: The Marines acted after saying Stein stated March 1 on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists, "Screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him." Stein later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.

During a hearing, a military prosecutor submitted screen grabs of Stein's postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of Obama on a "Jackass" movie poster. Stein also superimposed Obama's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," military prosecutor Capt. John Torresala said.

You: political discourse is not forbidden in any way. What is forbidden is wearing your uniform while you do it, or doing it when publicly representing the US military.

While it passes for political commentary in the civilian world, what idiot in uniform would think it is a sensible take on 0bama for a military guy to advocate. Belongs in a bar.

At the hearing this month at Camp Pendleton, Torresala argued that Stein's behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy and should be dismissed after he ignored warnings from his superiors about his postings.

What an idiot! No sympathy.

35 posted on 04/25/2012 1:49:25 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
He also qualified his statement that was the focus of the charge.

Was that the 'Screw 0bama' or somthing else?

From the article: At the hearing this month at Camp Pendleton, Torresala argued that Stein's behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy and should be dismissed after he ignored warnings from his superiors about his postings.

Nobody has to follow unlawful orders, so that isn't a big deal. He ignored the counseling, hoping to score a political victory. Didn't make it.

36 posted on 04/25/2012 1:58:15 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
“I don’t accept your premise that this man didn’t love and have fidelity to his country”

That is not my premise, my premise is that if politics is more important to an individual than their love and fidelity to this country they should not serve.

Its a simple concept that simple grunts like me, my father and my grandfather and millions of others before were able to understand and nothing has changed to make the concept suddenly incomprehensible.

37 posted on 04/25/2012 2:05:05 PM PDT by montanajoe (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Absolutely. He knew exactly what the price he would pay would be. He has no basis for complaint now.


38 posted on 04/25/2012 2:08:47 PM PDT by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

He knew what the result would be and obviously did not care. Every soldier/sailor/marine...knows.


39 posted on 04/25/2012 2:11:16 PM PDT by DallasSun (Courage~Fear that has said its prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xone

“Was that the ‘Screw 0bama’ or somthing else?”

Silly hyperbole. I find it funny that a rant like that is believed to be a violation of Article 34.

“Nobody has to follow unlawful orders, so that isn’t a big deal. He ignored the counseling”

You’ve got this mixed up. It is the superiors that ignored the content of what the counseling was related to. His qualification of “unlawful orders”, is critical to the charges.

Superiors, even in the military, are sometimes wrong. So, are courts. Initially, I thought he was obviously wrong, due to the warnings from his superiors. But, I’d like to see how the “unlawful orders” was refuted by the prosecutor. That should have changed things. I’ll bet the refutations were weak at best.


40 posted on 04/25/2012 2:12:29 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

” my premise is that if politics is more important to an individual than their love and fidelity to this country they should not serve.”

Simple unproven assumptions and opinion.

“Its a simple concept that simple grunts like me, my father and my grandfather and millions of others before were able to understand and nothing has changed to make the concept suddenly incomprehensible.”

Well, this simple grunt would not have followed unlawful orders by Ronald Reagan, a man I respected deeply.


41 posted on 04/25/2012 2:18:18 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

You’re right about 134. A case can be made for 89, if “chain of command” can be interchanged for “commissioned officer”, since the POTUS is chain of command.

But, there’s always the possibility it was disobedience to a direct order, given that he was counseled on what he could and couldn’t do.

I agree about E-5 after 9 years. Something else is going on here that we’re not seeing.


42 posted on 04/25/2012 2:19:01 PM PDT by xzins (Vote Goode Not Evil! (the lesser of 2 evils is still evil))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
You’ve got this mixed up. It is the superiors that ignored the content of what the counseling was related to. His qualification of “unlawful orders”, is critical to the charges.

I doubt it, it looks like the content of the postings violated the policy; 'Screw 0bama' likely would. If the content had been verbal instead of written, no problem. Ignoring the counseling repeatedly is what got him an OTH.

43 posted on 04/25/2012 2:36:24 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

>The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party didn’t...

Wait? What’s this, butter?


44 posted on 04/25/2012 2:45:19 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xone

Anybody who has served in the military knows that Article 34 and possibly others can pretty much get you thrown out for nearly anything. I was counseled for a potential article for getting a sunburn prior to an obligatory Jump Tower training exercise. So, like a good little paratrooper, I took extra strength Tylenol and yelled a little louder.

I can’t really relate as I didn’t have time to buck anything, let alone be political, when I was in.

But I just can’t take “Screw Obama” as anything worthy of kicking somebody out. I find it laughable and capricious.


45 posted on 04/25/2012 2:52:30 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JohnKinAK

>Add this to the growing list of examples showing that Military Leadership is more loyal to Dear Leader than to the Constitution.

That was a contributing factor when I let my enlistment expire. As we were preping for a parade, sometime around the 2008 election, I made a comment about how if Obama was ineligible then the Army’s duty was to oust him (because it’s to the Constitution, not to a person or branch of the government, or even the government as a whole) and was told [basically] “Shut up specialist.” by some sergeant.


46 posted on 04/25/2012 2:52:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Meanwhile, Nidal Malik Hasan, a man who was willing to kill his fellow soldiers over his beliefs, is still receiving pay and benefits from the military.

I’m getting more and more reasons to be thankful I was turned down for military service. No way I could serve under dear leader.


47 posted on 04/25/2012 3:07:38 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Say it was in 2003, and the Marine had said “Screw Bush”. Or if it was the Civil war and he had said “Screw Lincoln”.


48 posted on 04/25/2012 3:12:36 PM PDT by RightCenter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightCenter

I would probably just respond, “F you buddy”

No. Not something you boot somebody for. No.


49 posted on 04/25/2012 3:16:36 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

>But I just can’t take “Screw Obama” as anything worthy of kicking somebody out. I find it laughable and capricious.

It underscores a way of thinking that, sadly, is VERY entrenched into people’s minds. (Laughable and capricious is a GREAT descriptor.)
It has to do, ultimately, with authority; allow me to illustrate with “the law.”

New Mexico has the following in its Constitution:
Art II, Sec 6, No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

There are, however, big signs saying “No Firearms, violators will be prosecuted” on the state, county & municipal courthouses. There is no actual statute regarding this, and EVEN IF THERE WAS it would be in violation of Art II, Sec 6. (County and municipal courthouses doubly because of the second sentence.)

Now, what would happen if I were to open carry into the municipal courthouse? I would be arrested and charged.
But under what authority? The authority of “DO AS I SAY! I HAVE A GUN!” obviously, as the state’s legislature, nor the county, nor the city has the legitimate authority to make (or enforce) such a policy.

I bring this up because it’s not [just] about the law; it’s about power. It’s about control. It’s about the appearance of authority without the legitimacy.
*THAT* is why the laws are so complex, convoluted, and given to arbitrary enforcement.


50 posted on 04/25/2012 3:17:58 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson