Would you be willing to commit violence against fellow Americans of differing viewpoints

Agreed, but we actually took the oath and take it seriously.

 

I saw the thread and assumed, rightly, that it was intended to make the answer about ideological differences. I tend to be more pragmatic. I would suggest that, yes, I would use violence if the other person's thinking was "hand over your wallet", "step out of the car so I can steal it", or other criminal intent. I would certainly engage someone violently if they were intent on taking my life, for example.

In any of these examples, I could point to a clear demarcation of difference of thinking that would lead to violence. I would also point out that at some point, authoritarianism might induce the same reactions.

 

The Oath does not empower any authority once the member is discharged.

 

I'm sure lefty is working on the voting machines as we speak. Trump is making America Great Again, lefty hates this.

 

No. It’s a statement of commitment.

 

Fun fact. The military oath is pretty much pointless. It may have meant something way back when. Now, it's the CONTRACT that you sign that means everything. The contract that moves you from the American justice system (in most cases), to the UCMJ.

Nowadays, when you "swear in"...it's just a formality you do after you've already been medically cleared and your official contract is signed and completed.

 

Which oath is only for personnel "on duty"? You're a professional soldier on and off duty once you sign your contract. Even in the Guard. Which is why you can be prosecuted by the UCMJ off duty. It's in your contract. If you've been in the military, you need to re-read that contract you've signed.

 

It is only pointless if your word is worthless.

If I take and oath I mean what I say.

 

I don't care.

The only thing that matters is what's in your signed contract.

Well not "yours" as you've never served. But what matters is what's in the signed contract.

 

The funny thing is, they seem to have gone so "all-in" on their 24/7/365 propaganda blitz that Trump a disaster, that they are in a position where they can't even acknowledge positive gains for the country. To the majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, who clearly see what is happening, that makes the left's political class look like they are actively resisting progress. A comical place for 'progressives' to be, and wholly entertaining to watch.

 

What I implied rather clearly, Aleks, is that enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America are enemies of mine, whether they are "foreign or domestic".

"Murder"...? Call it what you wish. But I won't sidestep the thread's question -- and therefore, YES, I would react violently against enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America, "foreign or domestic".

Question: if you discovered a venomous snake hiding in the blanket on your bed, what would you do?

 

The Oath Keepers who kill are murderers, yes.

The racialized Alt Right are all so in on their 24/7/365 propaganda blitz that Obama was a disaster, that they are in no position where they can even acknowledge the positive Obama gains for the country.

The fact is that even if he was a half-Kenyan Muslim, Obama is far greater a President than Trump the Master of Disaster.

 

Oh? Please show us an official site which declares that the oath to defend the Constitution must expire after a person who has been honorably discharged from military service retires.

Hint: the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution instructs that there is a "militia" made up of eligible citizens of the United States. Members of this "militia" are not limited in their participation of defense of this country by whether they've been discharged, or, are still serving on active duty....

 

It's your premise, and you have not supported it except with your opinion, Pollycy.

"Please show us an official site which declares that the oath to defend the Constitution" continues "after a person who has been honorably discharged from military service" so that the can injure or take life in support of it.

The militia can only be called up by legitimate authority, the state or federal government. It cannot call itself into authorized formations.

 

That "legitimate authority" is provided in the Constitution of the United States. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you are automatically empowered to bear weapons and to participate in a "militia". Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that the composition of a "militia" must first be authorized by any bureaucracy....

I'll ask you the same question I posed to Aleks in an earlier post in this thread -- "If you discovered a venomous snake hiding in the blanket on your bed, what would you do?"

 

The Constitution is the charter for the development of the law, including that governing the militia.

You do not have the authority you claim, pollycy.

Your venomous snake allegory is a fallacy of false equivalency.

 

Depends what the militia's mission is. There are militia's in texas not authorized by the government that help catch illegal aliens entering the United States. They even wear uniforms.

 

Having said that, why do you refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment?

 

On the contrary, Jake, the Constitution IS the very bedrock of the law in the United States. It is not some kind of "springboard" for legal 'activists' to construct an alternate 'reality', or a revisionist interpretation of the Constitution.

But, no, neither I nor surely any other responsible law-abiding citizen would grab up weapons with the intent of "committing violence" against other U. S. citizens with whom there are "differing viewpoints". I've said that my OATH binds me to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, and that the oath never expired. In my estimation, it requires more than "differing viewpoints" in order to classify an opponent as an enemy.

 

pollycy fails to understand the Constitution is the charter from whence law develops. That law does not allow him to organize a militia to commit violence in the name of the law against other U. S. citizens, and that law does not allow him to classify opponents as enemies of the United States.

 

Please, Jake, show me in the Constitution where it says ANY of the stuff you posted above.... Oh, and while you're at it, please show us where it says that an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States automatically expires. It would expire after being rescinded or disavowed by the person who had willingly taken that oath, but not because of any automatic 'expiration' that was ever explained to me, or that I have ever read, or heard of....

I have re-read the wording of my Honorable Discharge. Nope, not one word saying anything like, "The person named in this Honorable Discharge is hereafter forbidden to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic". It doesn't say anything like that on my DD Form 214, either.

You imply that I'm just making things up...? Are YOU...?!

 

Because I believe it's not under attack, and is being misinterpreted. Defending the Constitution doesn't mean I have to agree with it entirely all the time, just that I agree with the idea that we should have one, and even that is really debatable. You conservatives do this all the time; you're using it as some sort ot penally proscriptive decree and it's actually a framework under which we make laws rather than a law itself

 

Oh, I see - defending the constitution, in your view, depends om your view of the Constitution, not the actual law surrounding it.
So, someone who, say, is against abortion does not attack the Constitution because they do not believe the constitution protects it.

 

So do rent a cops and Fed X drivers, that's totally meaningless. People don't have to be authorized by anyone to enforce the law but they don't have any actual authority to do so either. A Citizens Arrest is just that, one citizen arrresting another, that is, just physically holding him. He has no real authority to do so and will be liable for any damages the arrested party may suffer.

 

I consider myself a left-leaning Independent (because f*** both parties). Just because you may disagree with someone on politics, doesn’t mean it warrants violence. There is no valid reason for it!