US soldier massacres unarmed civilians

[Guns Guns Guns]

So what did you mean in post 4 above?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

that government personnel, serving as government employees, do not have 2nd Amendment rights. They are given permission to be armed in order to defend themselves while performing government duties. that permission can, and has been, removed for some. not enough in my opinion, but it's a start.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

that government personnel, serving as government employees, do not have 2nd Amendment rights. They are given permission to be armed in order to defend themselves while performing government duties. that permission can, and has been, removed for some. not enough in my opinion, but it's a start.

I see.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm curious of all the liberals here, why were there calls to try marines for things like urinating on dead bodies, or killing suspected, but unarmed, al qaida insurgents.....yet nothing about this guy yet?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I'm curious of all the liberals here, why were there calls to try marines for things like urinating on dead bodies, or killing suspected, but unarmed, al qaida insurgents.....yet nothing about this guy yet?

Good question.

Well, liberals?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'm curious of all the liberals here, why were there calls to try marines for things like urinating on dead bodies, or killing suspected, but unarmed, al qaida insurgents.....yet nothing about this guy yet?

maybe because this guy likely became insane, unlike the other actions? i don't know.

 

[Alias]

This man was on his fourth deployment. He should not have been there.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

maybe because this guy likely became insane, unlike the other actions? i don't know.

This man was on his fourth deployment. He should not have been there.

so we should have limited service folks to one deployment maybe?

 

[Alias]

so we should have limited service folks to one deployment maybe?

Okay with that. No more than two, positively.

 

[Disillusioned]

personal weaponry should most definitely NOT be allowed. as far as issuing them weapons, if they show themselves to be irresponsible in any way, shape, or form, then hell no. the same standards we are held to, they should be held to.

and if we the people are denied our right to carry, then cops should be disarmed as well.

Disarm the people and disarm the cops, so only criminals have guns.

Does anybody see the flaw here? Or is it just me.


Leave it to STY to turn a thread about war crimes into a second amendment arguement.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Disarm the people and disarm the cops, so only criminals have guns.

Does anybody see the flaw here? Or is it just me.

it's just you.

Leave it to STY to turn a thread about war crimes into a second amendment arguement.

you should talk to legion about that, not me.

 

[Don Quixote]

personal weaponry should most definitely NOT be allowed. as far as issuing them weapons, if they show themselves to be irresponsible in any way, shape, or form, then hell no. the same standards we are held to, they should be held to.

and if we the people are denied our right to carry, then cops should be disarmed as well.

then how would they deal with criminals that do carry weapons

 

[Disillusioned]

it's just you.



you should talk to legion about that, not me.

And I suppose you think we could prevent war by outlawing it.

As to who started it, you're the one who said "You think government employies should have 2nd amendment rights"

 

[SmarterthanYou]

then how would they deal with criminals that do carry weapons

they don't. that's kind of the point. they (government) force most of us to do it, so why shouldn't they?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And I suppose you think we could prevent war by outlawing it.

don't believe I ever said that, but anti gunners like you think you can prevent crime by denying people the right to carry, so whatever.

As to who started it, you're the one who said "You think government employies should have 2nd amendment rights"

so sue me.

 

[Disillusioned]

don't believe I ever said that, but anti gunners like you think you can prevent crime by denying people the right to carry, so whatever.


so sue me.

Ah, having been caught out in a failure he resorts to "So sue me"

 

[christiefan915]

I'm curious of all the liberals here, why were there calls to try marines for things like urinating on dead bodies, or killing suspected, but unarmed, al qaida insurgents.....yet nothing about this guy yet?

I'll bite.

Life without the possibility of parole, because I'm against the death penalty even for a p.o.s. like this who indiscriminately took 16 innocent lives.

 

[Disillusioned]

I'll bite.

Life without the possibility of parole, because I'm against the death penalty even for a p.o.s. like this who indiscriminately took 16 innocent lives.

Ship him out to the tribe of the people he killed, I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with him, might even engender some positive feelings from the victims families. Life without parole seems pretty small in comparison.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'll bite.

Life without the possibility of parole, because I'm against the death penalty even for a p.o.s. like this who indiscriminately took 16 innocent lives.

but what if 4 tours in combat gave him such PTSD that he's gone mental? is that deserving of life without parole?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ship him out to the tribe of the people he killed, I'm pretty sure they know how to deal with him, might even engender some positive feelings from the victims families. Life without parole seems pretty small in comparison.

so you should have no problem then with the waterboarding or worse that is happening in gitmo, right?