K.C., near me, I have a bow permit there. Used to have a gun permit but the Democrats took all my guns.

Buck and Val,

There are far more important issues involved in this election than the candidates' respective military service. That was more than 30 years ago! Are you the same person you were 30 years ago? I was 13 years old, 30 years ago!

Val, In Buck's defense, I find it odd that Kerry got out so early, and won't release his records. If he got an honorable discharge, he would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.

However, if he got out on a discharge which was other than honorable, (general, less than, or dis) SOLELY BECAUSE HE INTENDED TO PROTEST THE WAR, then in my mind that is strictly a technicality, a result of his political and moral convictions, and again I, MYSELF, will not condemn him for that.

Buck, In Val's defense, as I said, Bush's military service is surrounded in so much dispute and contraversy, about his attendance, his not taking his physicals, etc., that there is no way I can believe for one minute that he did not shirk his responsibilities and actually fulfilled all of his duties. I tend to believe that he most likely played it fast and loose and got away with it because of his family and their wealth and that THAT is why and how he got an honorable discharge.

Now, let me ask you this; which is worse:

A. A man who serves overseas, under enemy fire, for four months, comes home, resigns his commission, accepts a discharge which is other than honorable as a result of his moral and political convictions, and goes on to protest what he sees as an unjust, immoral, and unwinnable war-

OR

B. A man who uses his family's privilege and influence to get a stateside PART TIME post for 6 years, which more than half the time he doesn't show up for, fails to fulfill his obligations to the Air Guard, and then further uses his wealth and privilege to get away with doing so, and to get an honorable discharge that he doesn't deserve?

Buck posted:
"By the way, the logic flow is "Kerry served in Vietnam, it is well documented and witnessed, but it does not mean he received an honorable discharge." The two events are mutually exclusive and unrelated."

Buck, I believe you have misspoken here; saying something is mutually exclusive means that if one happened then it is impossible for the other to have happened. In this context you would be saying that if Kerry served in Vietnam there is no way that he got an honorable discharge and vice versa. And his discharge is clealy not unrelated to his service overseas.

However, I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

"Just because Kerry served overseas does not necessarily mean he got an honorable discharge."

Your statement is correct, but saying the two are mutually exclusive and unrelated is not.

Buck also posted:

"These sections of the Code refer to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. So it appears that Kerry either involuntarily separated from the service himself by resigning his commission prior to 1972 or was involuntarily separated from the service by the Navy for cause prior to 1972 and in either case the separation was "less than honorable"."

Typically, an INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION does not include a RESIGNATION. Typically, involuntary separation means being fired or terminated against the wishes of the party in question. If one RESIGNS, that is a VOLUNTARY separation, not INVOLUNTARY.

I don't know where that fits into this context. Perhaps Kerry was TERMINATED for his anti-war activities?

If so, like I said, I will not condemn him for that, regardless of what type of discharge he received as a result. Unless he was TERMINATED for some OTHER misconduct or insubordination, OTHER than protesting the war, I don't see where it has anything to do with his military service or record, and LESS to do with his candidacy or fitness to be President.

Again, I feel that this point of discussion is MOOT because there are so many more important aspects of this election and what is at stake.

My deepest respect to both of you,

Jim

Bowarrows,

Very well said! Thanks for weighing in!

Jim

Jon,

First, this is yet ANOTHER prime example, posted by YOU, of right wing scare tactics. Like "You'll have less under sKerry."

Saying Kerry wants to ban guns altogether based upon that voting record is a stretch to say the least.

Second, even if that was what he wanted, he's not gonna get it! There are 535 reps in Congress, 9 Supreme Court justices, and all of us out here that stand between him and a complete ban of all firearms.

Please, this alarmist rhetoric and these gross exaggerations are ludicrous!

I posted my postion on the Second Amendmant and gun control some pages back. I cherish and defend my rights under the Second, but I understand there is a legitimate interest in public safety which requires certain limits and regulation where firearms are concerned. Somehow a delicate balance must be achieved and maintained.

Respectfully,

Jim

Kerry had to run on his record in Vietnam. His Vietnam record, which sucks, is still better than his 20 year record as a US Senator. Too bad the Swift Vote Vets knocked his campaign out, decisively.