Presidents salute

I think that many people became enraged when President Obama gave his coffee salute back to the U.S. Marine. The fallacy that most people that got mad would fall under the appeal to ignorance. Why , I say this is that most believe because the President is the Commander in Chief that his salute back to the marine was nessecary, but because he is a civilian  he does not have to salute back. I also think that most people saw the salute from only the U.S. Marines point of view and because it was caught on tv. I aslo think that irrelevant reasoning would fit in this situation as well.

NFL 2

I think the big fallacy at hand with the NFL issue on CTE, is begging the question. I understand the NFL is a business and the players are employee's. But the question at hand is when should the players take some responsibility about CTE and concussions.  Most NFL players have played football since Pop Warner, high school and thru college. So with that said , players play knowingly that there is a great risk of injury. Just as a police officer knowingly takes a chance of gettig shot and killed. At the same time  is there greater evidence that something else is causing CTE in NFL players, not just the concussions.

FSU

I think there are a few fallacies at hand when it comes to the Jimbo Fisher interview, about FSU football player Jamies Winston. The first comes when Fisher stated " I know the facts of the case, facts haven't changed in the case". Fisher knows what he was told and what is in the police report. The only people that know the facts are Jamies Winston and the female accussing Winston of sexual assault.Fisher also stated " We know the reports , We know everything that's out there. There's nothing new, We been through this". The only person that went through anything in the case was Winston again and the female. Fisher is just dealing with the fallout of the case.I think the fallacies at hand deal with the questionable statement , tokenism and evading the issue. The questionable statements and tokenism deal with the statements Fisher made," I know the facts", then when he said " We have been through this". The fallacy that deals with evading the issue, was should Winston be kicked off the team for his repeated patterns of bad behavior.

FSU

Just in the past few years ,Jameis Winston the quarterback for the FSU ( Florida State University) has come under fire a number of times. In April of 2014 while a member of the FSU baseball team  Jameis Winston was cited for shoplifting crab legs for a local Florida business, for this he received a suspension Then Winston was involved in a BB gun incident with fellow FSU football players back in 2012, in that incident a few players were charged with a criminal mischief according to The New York Times.Then is September of this year he was  suspended for using obscene phrases. In December of 2012 he was charged with sexual assault of a fellow student. Now he is being investigated for autographs for money. During an interview head coach Jimbo Fisher  stated " We've been through this"   All of these incidents have happened while Winston has attended FSU.  I understand that the coach must defend his players , but when is enough.  Coach Fisher also stated in the interview that "the facts are the facts",and " I know the Facts of the case" but truly the only person to know the facts is going to be Jameis Winston. Now Jameis Winston must face a the student  affairs committee for violations under the student code of conduct. So should FSU cut ties with Jamies Winston for drawing so much negative attention to FSU or should FSU just brush off these major incidents by Winston.

NFL

I read the article about how 76 out of 79 NFL players deceased found to have some type of brain disease. According to the article most of the brain disease seem to come from multiple brain injuries especially concussions. The brain disease that is refer to in  this article is called CTE. What my understanding is that the NFL wants this type of information to disappear as fast as it can along with all the talk , lawsuits and media attention on the concussion issue.  I think for a long time the NFL knew all to well about all of this at hand, but what it came down to in my strong opinion was the all mighty dollar.  Such as selling more tickets , jersey, memorabilia, advertising,  and  TV revenue. So if the super star player was not there playing , why would people go to see the third string team. The best example at this present moment would be Adrian Peterson. At first he was out for a ACL injury ticket sales dipped a bit, but when he came back to almost breaking a single season rushing record to miss it by a few yards, ticket sales climbed. Now he is in trouble for a domestic dispute over his own child, ticket revenue, jersey sales, marking share and endorsement deals down or gone because he is been cut/put on the inactive roster. So tell my if it is not about the all mighty $. This is why the NFL has given people / ex-players a certain amount of time to op-out of a class action law suit. If they don't op-out they get say 4 million instead of suing on their own and who knows what they get. Like the song says its all about the money , money for the NFL ( owners ) and not about the players .

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.  So i was reading the article from The First Amendment Center on how people were yelling obscenities at police officers. Because we make mistakes or break the law , we have the right to tell police to f.. off. According to the article we do, and the first amendment along with the number of case that have been thrown out or overturn on convictions. So what makes it so different when an enlisted military member ,commissioned officer or retired veteran any different when the speak out against the President in the same way. Is not the president/ Commander in Chief a elected official as well as a federal employee to the tax payers. Everyone deserves respect until their behavior dictates the do not deserve it any more. So why the double standard. Are the military personnel held to a higher standard  than the ordinary citizens above the first amendment. But we are held to a higher standard than just the average citizen, its called the UCMJ( Uniform Code Of Military Justice) (http://www.ucmj.us/ ) Just because we wear a uniform, does not take the first amendment away from us. Yes I know there are things we give up  when we enlist but freedom of speech is not one

 O n August 5 , Major general Harold Green was killed in a military conflict . Major Green was the first in a long time that a high ranking officer was killed in combat since the Vietnam War, and during his military funeral the was no Commander in Chief there and not even the Vice -President. This pissed of many veterans , active duty personnel and many family members who had their loved ones give the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Being a disabled veteran , this really torn into my gut. So did  President Obama break tradition or precedence on the matter of  not attending a high ranking officers funeral . The enlisted men/ women and officers are  entitled to certain military burial rights which the no doubt earn with their sacrifice. Its not tradition that gives a fallen hero of are military the funeral they deserve but their right for the ultimate sacrifice they gave for God and country, let alone your constitutional rights that we all have .
 But some of our past U.S. presidents did set the bar and precedence for attending military personnel funerals, such as Lyndon  B Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1784. I understand that President Obama can't attend every military funeral for every active duty service member who gives their lives , that why the wreath is laid at the Tomb Of the unknown solider.  I also know that funerals are a private matter and if the president does and it sort of becomes a circus because of security and the media. Yes a loved ones military member passed and will be greatly missed , but for the Commander In Chief Obama to not even show a sign of respect for his military duties is unforgettable. So if past presidents show there respect for fallen soldiers why not our current one as well. Attitude reflects leadership So in ending my strong opinion says yes that the president or vice- president should attend.

Being in the U.S. Navy for 7 years ,I learned a lot of military traditions and military rules  that must be followed. If these rules and regulations were not followed I was subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So when  President Obama came down the steps of the helicopter and at the bottom of the steps a U.S. Marine saluted him the President gave him a half ass salute with a cup of coffee in his hand. The behavior of the President caused quite a stir. The Marine was saluting the office of the President . The return salute from the President was a tradition even if it was have ass. Upon some research the President is a civilian and not a member of the  military even through he is the Commander and Chief, only the members of the military are required to salute. So in all actuality the President really does not have to salute back. I was upset when I first saw the the half ass salute, but upon further research I must take it with a grain of salt.

Here is some information on saluting I found on the web. The first article was a real shock to me , due to the fact it was ingrained that a salute was always return . So check out this article.

http://www.texasgopvote.com/military-salute/it-proper-president-render-military-hand-salute-002816

Military personnel in uniform are required to salute when they meet and recognize persons entitled (by grade) to a salute except when it is inappropriate or impractical (in public conveyances such as planes and buses, in public places such as inside theaters, or when driving a vehicle).

Persons Entitled to a Salute

• The President of the United States (Commander-in-Chief)
• Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers
• Any Medal of Honor Recipient
• Officers of Friendly Foreign Countries

A salute is also rendered

• When the United States National Anthem, "To the Color," "Hail to the Chief," or foreign national anthems are played.
• To uncased National Color outdoors.
• On ceremonial occasions (such as Change of Command, and Military Parades).
• At reveille and retreat ceremonies, during the raising or lowering of the flag.
• During the sounding of honors.
• When the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag is being recited outdoors.
• When turning over control of formations.
• When rendering reports.

Salutes are not required when

• Indoors, except when reporting to an officer or when on duty as a guard.
• Addressing a prisoner.
• Saluting is obviously inappropriate. In these cases, only greetings are exchanged. (Example: A person carrying articles with both hands, or being otherwise so occupied as to make saluting impracticable, is not required to salute a senior person or return the salute to a subordinate.)
• Either the senior or the subordinate is wearing civilian clothes (a salute in this case is not inappropriate, but is not required.)
• Officers of equal rank pass each other (a salute in this case is not inappropriate, but it is not required.)

Prisoners whose sentences include punitive discharges have lost the right to salute. All other prisoners, regardless of custody or grade, render the prescribed salute except when under armed guard.

Any military person recognizing a need to salute or a need to return one may do so anywhere at any time. 

    All Americans have a constitutional right to own a gun ( Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment) and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.Guns don't kill people , people kill people. Many people believe that banning guns would solve all gun related crimes. Here is  a video from Australia on what happens when guns are banned there. Usually when it come to guns, most people can only think of Sandy Hook or Columbine. But in all actually are the two criminal acts related. If so, do guns lead to the crime and if that is true is taking away the 2nd Amendment going to change that, I think not. Also at the same time if all Americans that owned guns legally turned them in if there was a law , would the criminals give up theirs as well , I think not. According to the Federal Bureau Investigation stats on gun crime stats, violent crime in the U.S. has significantly gone down with figures. Knifes are used more often that not , because they are more readily available, along with body weapons( fists/feet) and blunt objects such as a baseball bat.
    Most crimes that are committed with a gun are obtained in many different ways , most are obtained illegally The Daily Caller list many different ways that guns are obtained to commit a gun related crime, but not by the law abiding gun owner.According to the National Crime Victimization Survey   almost 43.6 million criminal victimization that occurred in 1993 , 4.4 million were crimes of rape or some type of sexual assault and of those crimes 1.3 million stated their offender had a gun. Guns saves just as many lives as  the person behind the gun commits a crime. An with that guns are not just used in crimes they are used in sporting events like skeet shooting, Summer Olympics and for hunting of food that has been  done for ages.
    I'm not just preaching to the choir on this , I have first hand experiences with a gun related crimes. My own brother Eric was shot and killed by a person with a stolen hand gun. The persons reasoning behind shooting him ,was that he thought he was in a gang because of the clothes he would wear. Also had two very close family friends killed by their own son and his friend , because they were to strict of parents, according to him. Both of these two individuals are behind bars for life. With that said I still believe that no one or government should take away any persons right that has been given to them by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There are many sites out there against gun control, but here are a few that I found very interesting Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, National Rifle  Association, New York State Rifle and Pistol and Gun Owners of America just to name a few.

Amendment 2

Gun control has not effectively shown that it actually has reduced the number of any gun related crimes