TheScout

You're right, a lot of the Founding Fathers were Hispanic. Ideas from Spain's backward autocratic monarchy of the period also had a big influence on the Constitution. Oh wait, we conquered all the Hispanic populations that lived in our land before we owned it.

"I guess you have not read Mein Kampf along the way, The Scout. Too bad. Apart from the insidiouness of the plan, it's an archetype of political polemic literature." I have read the book. Several years ago as a teenager, but I have read it. "Hitler's strategic goal was world hegemony under the flag of the swastika. His agenda included" World Conquest has long been the goal of the powerful. Alexander the Great. The Romans. Genghis Khan Napoleon Just to go off the top of my head without even thinking. How did they all end up? If a Napoleon, Alexander,

"Consider in 1770s in the American Colonies: Conservative = Tory = British Loyalists Liberal = Whig = Radical Minority Separatist Ergo; Radical Minority Separatist = American Patriot = Founding Fathers of the United States" This shows little knowledge ot the history of political science. The term liberal means something different today than it did back them. Hence the term classical liberalism . . .

I think you are being facetious. The French have had a very proud military history. However during the Second World War it took an understandably pounding . . .

Merlyn you know that the Constitution requires the Congress to consent with the raising of troops. Who cares what the SCOTUS says? You are also sounding like a warmongering! So Germany was researching a bomber. Other countries might be researching WMDs? Should we invade them. Who cares about Sanger's rocket program? Germany did not have a beef with the US.

General Washington's army was conventional in all but the early period of the war, but it was supplemented by militia in almost all occasions. Many times like in the Southern campaign the milita fought alone. The British had the ability to ship as much artillery to America as they wished. Though field commanders used very little of it except for very light guns as war in America had less sieges and more maneuver than wars of that time in Europe. I think the Vietnamese drove the French out before almost any aid came from the USSR or China. You don't seem to have much respect fo

But remember Gern, the point of guerilla war isn't to win. It is to wear out the enemy. The Soviets quickly used their better resources to dominate the few cities, but they could not country the vast mountainous areas of the country. Even our forces have problems operating in some parts of the nation today. A dedicated guerilla force with small arms does not require much more to hold such restricted terrain. "In Vietnam, the Vietcong were rather ineffective until supplied advanced military hardware from China." The French were driven out of Vietnam long before real aid came to

"Southerners often blame Lincoln for calling up 90,000 volunteers." The first great unconstitutional act. A measure which must be approved by Congress. "Was it an invasion of the south or the reasonable reaction of a country protecting its capital?" The South wanted peace. They sent a peace delegation to Lincoln which he refused to meet with. "The US did not enter WW2 to save European Jews." I realize that, but this is usually cited as a modern reason why the war was good. "What do you think the world would look like if we had stayed out of WW2?" Probably

"Well TheScout, how do we protect ourselves from an oppressive government? Obviously, you can't do it with private small arms, not even automatic weapons. Just not enough firepower to stop a well trained and equipped army. Private ownership of small arms are unnecessary and impractical to preserve the nation." Again, what about George Washington and his soldierrs against the greatest empire in the world? More recently look what the Afghans did to the Soviet Union. Or the Algerians to France. Or the Vietnamese to the French and the Americans. "So I think we follow

""FDR had no reason to fight Germany. He shot at their submarines on the high seas and send aid to the British." "What in the Sam Hill kind of revisionist history is that, Sir? Go back and review the timeline of World War II:"" Umm. . . Lend Lease we were pouring aid to Germany's enemies. Then we started using our own convoys and US Navy ships were authorized to fire on German submarines. Why were we basically giving weapons to one side of a conflict. No wonder Germany was angry at us. Wouldn't you be if you were German? "Dec 7/Dec 8, 1941: Empire of Japan attacks Uni

Like I said I think it would be interesting to research the original intent of the word arms. I don't know. But like I said which you ignored, States themselves were forbidden to build ships, though they certainly could afford it. And they were the most powerful weapons of that day . . . "No amount of arming one's self to the teeth it going to protect you from oppression. If you feel that you need these things to live free then I submit your already living in an oppressive tyranny." Remember what happened in this country from 1775-1783? Ever hear of George Washington? Apparently it d

If another country occupied a fort in the midst of one of your harbors, I think you have the right to shoot at it. In World War I Wilson armed merchant ships sending munitions to Germany and supported the UK's blockade of Germany. If you were the German Emperor, wouldn't you have attacked ships sending munitions to your allies too? The Zimmerman telegraph was rejected by Mexico and was a proposal IF war occured between the US and Germany. Whatever we think of this, was it worth over 100,000 American lives? I think not. Same with World War II. FDR armed merchant ships bringing suppli

"TheScout, I do not mock you. But you have stated the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow citizens to repel foriegn invasions and resist our own government. It doesn't refer to firearms, it refers to arms. Obviously, unless the citizens have access to the same military hardware the government does, the 2nd Amendment becomes meaningless. I cannot resist my government without SAMs, RPGs, landmines, cannon and possibly cruise missiles. Its an arms race we are very far behind on. Those of you who use the 2nd Amendment to justify ownership of assault weapons and pistols, are misusing it. Those toys

Moral Clarity.

Lincoln certainly attacked the Confederacy. Wilson wanted to fight Germany and brought the US into a war when no US interests were at stake. FDR had no reason to fight Germany. He shot at their submarines on the high seas and send aid to the British. Anyway, does it even matter? So we are allowed to violate the constitution on wars that you think are worthwhile and not a personal vendetta. That makes a lot of sense.

Why do you insist on making a mockery of our constitutional rights?

The 2nd Amendment does all that. It says the right of the people to own arms shall not be infringed. All of your people's sad stories have no effect on that. I don't know everyone keeps sharing them.

Again what has that to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Nice stories people. But do any of them have any effect on the wording of the 2nd Amendment? Isn't that what really matters?

Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson all has worst constitutional abuses during wartime. I say this not to make excuses, but wondering why nobody cares? These men are ranked among our greatest Presidents? Anybody?

They would be critical in a revolt against a potentially tyranical government. Or what if the US was invaded and occupied? The people could wage a successful resistance. If the British had banned the most effective weapons of the day and confiscated them, the colonists would have been less successful. "Americans have a right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison Are we afraid to trust Americans now?

He took an oath to the "Constitution of the United States," not the United States. Big difference. When the Constitution was violated and his state was no longer in the union it was his duty to leave as well. In the past I have held a military commission. I would have done the same thing. Like Robert E. Lee I could not fight against my home, my friends, and my family.

Mississippi left the union. Why would one of its citizens remain loyal to the United States? I would have done the same thing. I would do the same thing if my state left the union today. I quoted a famous American statesmen and you have found a way into making this another Civil War thread . . .

None of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get?

It is a good quote on the early vision of the American republic in my opinion. Especially relevant from one who sought so hard to save that vision over the course of several decades. He was one of America's greatest statesmen. He held an impressive array of legislative, executive, and military offices.