True, most people, christians or not, would hesitate to kill another person without some form of training. But, there are different levels of internal conflict. Following the order to kill a foreigner, while deployed outside the country, doesn't present the same conflict that following the order to kill citizens of your own country would.

Do you understand the concept of legal and illegal order? The Uniform Code of Military Justice (which is a sub-set of United States federal law, not some seperate guidelines invented by the military), Title 10 - Subtitle A - Part II - Chapter 47 - Subchapter X - section 892 provides for punishment of soldiers who fail to carry out lawful orders. There is no requirement to carry out illegal orders, and soldiers from private to general have been prosecuted for issuing or carrying out illegal orders.

I expect that some of them would attempt to carry out that order. I also expect that they would face resistance from others within their ranks that understand the ramifications of such an action. Those being, we are now initiating an armed takeover of the country that we signed up to defend, and going against some of the foundational elements of that country.

Why do you keep going to the "Support our troops = believes in 2nd amendment rights" story? Why would you think that "supports troops in (sorta, kinda) legal actions in a foreign country" is the same as "supports troops when they are taking illegal action in the US"? Those are certainly different scenarios.

Wow, I though I was a pessimist. Hopefully I can keep dreaming, and don't have to find out how this plays out. I don't know what your definition of "won't have any problem" is, but I guess we'll have to agree-to-disagree about the level of commitment to the rule of law and the constitution that is present in the armed forces. I'm sure it's not 0% would or 0% would not obey those orders, and based on what the actual numbers are, so goes the chances of such a thing happening or not.

For the sake of discussion, what does it look like when 30% of the soldiers given these orders refuse them, and take action to keep them from being implemented. At the same time, approximately 30% of US households own firearms, at a rate of more than 1 per household. I don't think that is "won't have any problem" territory. Sure, some of those people will willfully turn them over, but lets talk about those who don't. Are you suggesting that troops with rocket launchers, or an air strike, are going to be called against some person or group that refuses to turn over their firearms? Now you're getting into Civil War territory, and the only people wishing for that are far out on the fringe. Being "massively outgunned" means less than you might think, see US vs. North Vietnam, USSR vs. Afganistan, Israel vs. Palestinians . You have to factor in the "will to fight". There would be doubt in the minds of soldiers, and much less in their opponents.

Sorry, I don't know where you are getting any idea that I buy into the "soldier=hero" bullshit. I think protest, resistance and exerting my rights are patriotic, not just parroting whatever the regime-du-jour is spouting. It can't come from making a statement of fact that the majority of the members of the US armed forces are US citizens, and thus will have family and friends that are also US citizens.

If the job assigned to an armed forces member is "deploy inside the United States, and forcefully take weapons from the citizens", then that assignment sets up a conflict, both for the soldiers, and the citizens.

For the soldier, it conflicts with their oath to protect the US and its Constitution, which explicitly states citizens may own firearms. Some will rebel against this type of order, others will not. Whether it moves beyond the order being issued would revolve around the percentages of each, and how they react amongst themselves. Refusing an unlawful order is, IIRC, still a legal action for a soldier.

If soldiers actually get to the point of trying to implement those orders, the conflict is less confusing, yet more severe, for citizens. The soldier is no longer a "American citizens who are just doing their jobs", they are now an invading force attempting a military coup, and there goes the reason for not shooting back.

Violating the 4 basic rules of firearms? Yea, I would GTFO too.

The armed forces are currently composed of your brothers, sisters, uncles, cousins, and friends. These people still have some compunction to not shoot at American citzens. They do still swear an oath to defend the country and the constitution. When war-bots start taking over the front line roles that humans currently occupy, THEN this argument starts making a lot more sense. Hopefully there is never a need for a hot engagement, but history has shown over and over again that people will face those long odds when things get bad enough.

I wasn't aware that the purpose of the protests in Ferguson was to shoot police officers. If that would have happened, we would be in a VERY different place right now. Luckily no one went there.

A number of gun rights groups (sorry, refuse to use your ad-hominem attack terms) were protecting local businesses from being attacked. Just like a number of local business owners did during the LA riots in 1992.

They should get a different job then. When you find one that isn't shitty and thankless, let us know.

The job of police officer is not nearly as dangerous as your friends would have you believe. Again, if they don't like it, they can GTFO.

If they enlisted, the gun wasn't put in their hands, they reached out and grabbed it. Yet again, their personal choice.

Randos, with guns, authority, and an us vs. them attitude. If you are talking about the so-called "good cops", then show me the story where the "good cop" turned in his co-worker for corruption, violence, etc, and wasn't persecuted by his remaining co-workers. Until police end the Blue Code of Silence (Blue Wall, Blue Shield), then there is no such thing as a good cop. Police who won't enforce the law against other police are just as bad as the law breaker.

You are correct. That should have been grouped with the CIFS/NFS statement. looks around for the "edit post" button

Did your "something usable" include jailed instances of Plex media server, DLNA server, OSX time machine service, and bittorrent client, all with web GUIs? I've done Solaris, FBSD, and linux admin, and probably could have set all that up, eventually. I set it up, plus CIFS, and NFS shares, in an afternoon on FreeNAS.

It's the plugins for all those that really sold me on using FreeNAS instead of rolling my own.

Wait a minute. Where did I object to what he is doing? I objected to the logic being used in your argument. Reading your post again, I think I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I think we're on the same side here, as I support what this guy is trying to do.

I don't think you are applying logic very well here, or possibly you are being intentionally obtuse. In all of your examples, the actor is in a situation where general safety guidelines are in place and expected to be followed. None of the described activities has any expectation of danger of injury.

The expectation being that the restaurant is going to serve food that is not dangerous to eat. The food might not be tasty, the service may be poor, and the prices may be high, but there is an expectation that the person walks out physically unharmed.

Again, the expectation is that the equipment is functional. The family is not guaranteed a fun time, but they at least expect to not be injured.

Same as above. The expectation is that established rules for safety will followed.

Football is inherently dangerous, and participants should have no reason to believe injuries are not a potential outcome. If there is a governing body that tries to downplay the chance of injury, tries to encourage participation while recovering from injury, or tries to discourage rules and equipment changes that would limit prevent injuries, they should be subject to scrutiny up to and including being sued, just as the restaurant, lift, and cinema owners in your examples would be.

From the summary, "They can't really spin the drives faster than 7,200 RPM without increasing heat and the rate of failure. "

I don't see an assertion in the summary, or the article, that drives are physically limited to 7200 rpm. You couldn't finish the sentence before replying?

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

I don't have a problem with those public officials being monitored while they are on the job. The police, who generally carry guns and have a growing reputation for abusing the powers granted by their position, seem like a good place to start.

I'm confused. Bitlocker is available starting with Windows 7, just not in all the consumer oriented releases. I'm not trying to suggest that Win7+bitlocker wouldn't be vulnerable to the problem of MicroSoft having the ability to decrypt the data, with suitable persuasion from a government, but just noting that MS does have encryption options available.

I believe there have been at least two stories about netflix support of linux clients.

I saw it, but didn't make the connection :-( You are correct that judges will often give instructions that make it seem as if jury nullification does not exist, and that the written law and judges orders are the only available options.

In addition, don't dare let on to the judge or DA that you know what jury nullification is during the voi dire (jury vetting and selection process) part of the trial. You'll NEVER sit on a jury if the judge and DA think you are going to judge the defendant AND the law.

Not true. The jury has the ability to judge the law unjust, and acquit the defendant, even if they are shown to be guilty of breaking the letter of the law. This is known as jury nullification, and has been a part of western common law for centuries.