The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[Polarbear1605]

Hmmm....definitely like the new uniform... not only do the leather leggings reflect adaptation to the situation but also the mockensons show the implemented of the latest stealth technology and the dash of treachery a good tactician learns in dealing with the enemy.

As for the weapon...any weapon that has a caliber of 45 or greater is always welcome.

Now in researching these Marines I fouund this:


We need to analyse this phote for a sec or two. The good sargeant was stationed at Fout Toulouse (AL assuming) in 1730. He was 44 at the time. He passed (at the fort and still on duty) in 1755 probably 68+ years old. So... stationed at the fort from 44 to 68 AND the marker is dedicated to his proliferation or as he is a "progentor" (for you Marines out there that means forefather) of ALL Fontenots on North America...quite the reputation...and we thought George Washingtom slept in a lot of places. Moral of the story...at least one fort commander realize that the speed and agility of youth is equal to or less than the experience and knowledge of (shall we say) a mature warrior. jmm99 - the pic shows there is still hope for us old guys.

From my link in the first post, On the Legality of Killing UBL Even If He Was Unarmed (and On the Title 50 Issue) - sneaky old ba$tard that I am, I hyperlinked in the OP the first half of the title, which I discussed in the OP - you will find:



Moving on to the post cited, Further Thoughts on Congressional Oversight, the UBL Operation, and the Title 10/Title 50 Issue:



Some specific statutes cited, etc. - basically War Powers and Congressional Oversight. You are an inquisitive bear, aren't you ? That's good.

----------------------------
Side issue

I'm getting tired wearing a dress uniform, carrying around a slung 63" 1728 Charlesville fusil.



Perhaps, a new avatar of my Troupe de la Marine in the more normal uniform of the Great Lakes - and more "carbined" fusil.



What think thee, Great White Bear (and anyone else) - still a .69 cal. ball.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

I'd suspect that 99.9% of any surveyed country would not know, and could care less about, differing views of UNC Art. 2(4). On the other hand, far more folks (over the Globe) have more definite and divergent views on "gun control" (depending on how one defines "gun control").

As to a "serious threat", I don't see Mary Ellen O'Connell as a "threat" to me in any form; and I'm sure not going to threaten her or anyone else with physical harm.

As I said, it's a "Political Struggle". As to that, some will support your political beliefs, others will oppose them; but most people on most issues are neutral or leaners.

Thus, he or she who says "if you are not for me (my beliefs), you are against me (my beliefs)", has elected to make many, many enemies.

Cheers

Mike