then I'm sure you realize that he took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States whether he agreed with it or not?
It is possible for you to stand for freedom in one way, yet against it in another. For us who consider the trampling of 2A rights as a detriment to freedom, you would be an enemy no different than king George. Your service in the military does not constitute that we concede our rights. I’m sure there were Americans who sided with king George in the revolution.
The unintelligible, nonsensical rantings of an individual who believes private firearms ownership is directly responsible for every school shooting that has been carried out in the united states. Essentially the factually incorrect holding that murdering students is an exercising of the second amendment.
You have to consider the fact that there are people out there who consider those who defend the 2A as detrimental to freedom and safety of the american people and would view the defenders of it an enemy no different then King George. Like it or not, it's a two way street when you come down to it.
A totalitarian. A person who believes he is better than the "masses" and he should have the power to force everyone to live as he commands. You can try to obfuscate and say its where "the people" control the means of production, or there is no private property but common ownership, or some other BS. But they all come down to the same thing - a small group of people have all the power and make all the decisions.
Which happens day in and day out on PF. Anyone and anything perceived to be to the left of some imaginary "center", is immediately mislabeled a "liberal".
Fortunately, he firmly supported the Constitution and its tenets, especially the Bill of Rights, and if he had been given an order to violate those tenets he not only would have refused that order but would have sought to place the person giving the order, along with any officer who agreed to follow it, under arrest.
Spare me the empty posturing. I will call things as I see them. I'll accept your assertion you served, which means you swore an oath to the Constitution... and thus subsequent efforts on your part to undermine the Constitution or the freedoms of your fellow citizens only become that much more egregious. Honorable service to country is laudable and admirable... but it is more than simply wearing the uniform.
Thank you for that. He was a larger than life character; a Southwestern lawman during one of the most lawless periods of American history, and an honest to God old-school gunfighter who could have been lifted straight out of a Zane Gray or a Louis L'Amour novel. His compatriots liked to tell me about how he was the kind of man who had bad guys surrender just because they heard he'd arrived on the scene. He worked very hard to teach me about not only right versus wrong but about honor and integrity and how to be self-reliant and capable; tough as nails but also capable of great kindness and love towards his family and friends. He had the best, most memorable sayings he could throw in to illustrate a point. He's been gone over thirty years now, but I still miss him.
And the claim of serving by many anti-gunners such as their false claims of being firearm owners is probably a falsehood.
That is utterly nonsensical. If those people think defense of a part of the Bill of Rights is "detrimental to freedom" then they need to ask themselves what they think freedom is! Either way, if they're right in their views then they are welcome to pursue the Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until they do that then they don't have a leg to stand on, and their efforts to attack the Constitution makes them the enemy of the Constitution, and they have zero justification to think of themselves as being in any way superior to those who actually fight to protect the Constitution and the Freedom we possess under it. That's not a "two way street"; it's simple fact.
Here, read these links and learn something instead of loosely throwing the term around, labeling people without really knowing what your talking about and losing all credibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_party https://www.britannica.com/topic/communist-party-politics https://www.livescience.com/42980-what-is-communism.html
so if the law and/or constitution along with it's tenets were changed or interpreted by a ruling by the Supreme court and he didn't agree with it, he'd have placed the person under arrest?
So because you disagree it's nonsensical to you. Have you ever considered the fact that others may consider your viewpoint nonsensical as well based on the lack of merit? Maybe your way isn't the "right way"? and if they change the 2nd amendment to terms you do not agree with would you still fail to support the change? would you still expect a police officer to support the change?