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, or Genghis Khan couldn't take the world, who else could?

"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 for guerilla armies at all I guess . . . That is odd considering most soldiers say it is the hardest type of war to fight.

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 the Vietnamese. "Your comparison to our revolutionary warriors is not applicable. They resisted with equal firepower." The Royal Navy was unmatched in the world. The British army enjoyed, when it wished to have it, better artillery support. At many times they had more gunpowder. They were the best trained army in the world. Some said Washington had no chance either. The early American statesmen, Noah Webster once wrote, Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

"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 the same. The USSR and Germany would have destroyed themselves. America would have less debt. And 200,000 Americans would not have died (The German number- of course we should have licked Japan). Many more would not have been wounded. I wish I had my copy of the book with me, but I do not its at my house. Its actual quite a good book. Very though provoking I read it a couple months back. It does not just deal with Churchill, it talks about the UK as a whole. Its subtitle is "How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the World." "Buchanan states that Churchill either helped make the key decisions - or cheered them - in every key strategic and diplomatic blunder Great Britain made from the eve of World War I through, obviously, World War II. Among them: Several misguided battles and maneuvers in both wars. -Deterioration of the Royal Navy began when Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer (in charge of the budget) in the 1920's. -Naively believing Britain and the U.S. had a "special relationship" with the U.S.; by war's end, however, Britain was more of a dependency of the U.S. rather than a partner with it. FDR and his successors were glad to see the Empire fall apart. -As First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI, Churchill initiated a "starvation blockade" against the German civilian population, a war crime that also violated Freedom of the Seas. And as Prime Minister he again committed war crimes by introducing civilian terror bombing as a war tactic. These tore away at the fabric of the Christian West. -Churchill despised Bolshevism and admired Mussolini and Hitler early on; his later obsession with knocking Hitler out drove him to appease Stalin - giving him half of Europe and signing on to ethnic cleansing campaigns that killed two million Germans. http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2977 Read the review. It does a good job of explaining the book real quick. He does discuss Chamberlain of course and all of European power politics in the 1920s and 30s. Of course Churchill was an important figure during this time and one of the biggest proponents of war against Germany. "And what part of Germany and Italy declared war on us do you not understand? We had already declared war on Japan without addressing them. Why do you make excuses for them? I really don't get it." I don't think I am making excuses for them. Part of understanding why countries do what they do is looking at things from their perspective. We were being hostile to Germany and aiding its allies. Of course they will attack us. "You keep referring to 200,000 lives. Over 418,000 Americans (including 1700 civilians) died in WW2. Are you just counting those that fought against the Germans?" Yeah, its a crude estimate. Just cutting the total number in half. Though in truth I don't know if the war in Europe counted for half of all casualties. I admit it is a crude measure. The Amerika bomber never existed. Even if it did, few could fly across the Atlantic at that time. America could have used its massive manpower and resources to build fighters and anti-aircraft batteries to make us virtually inpenetrable. Anyway, Germany was quite busy fighting the UK and the USSR. IF we weren't fighting them or aiding their enemies it is doubtful they would expense such resources to hurt us. "Good point. By January 1942 German U-Boats were sinking American coastal freighters within sight of the coast. This was before the first US troops or aircrews departed for the ETO. Would they have done this had we not reciprocated their declaration of war? I suspect so." Why would you suspect that Hal? Countries do not attack those they have no problems with?

"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 the second part of the 2nd Amendment and have well regulated militias. States could call for recruits and tax their citizens to fund them. Training and provisioning of the militias will be the responsibility of the governors of each state. These militias would be first responders in cases of emergency, whether natural or political." Its actually the first part of the Second Amendment (shows how much you know it). To me this is the ideal situation as well. However it seems to me the National Guard has been just about taken over by the federal establishment. In all areas of equipping, training, appointing of officers, etc the state militias are dependant on the federal government and the regular army than ever before. I question exactly where there first loyalties would lie. "Another approach, which could be employed simultaneously to the previous method, is to use our representative government to keep it from becoming oppressive in the first place. Of course this is ideal. But a move to tyranny has been the way of many democratic governments throughout history . . .

""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 United States of America at Pearl Harbor, Nichols Field, and assorted other Pacific Island stations." Germany didn't. "December 11, 1941: The German Third Reich declares war against the United States of America, under terms of the Tri-Partite Axis (signed Sept 27, 1940). The United States of America reciprocates." Germany thought the US would come into the war anyway. Plus, who cares? If some country that does not threaten our national security today declares war on us and has no way to hurt us declares war on us, she we invade them? So tell me, what was our issue with Germany that made us go to war? Or Italy? Were they worth the lives of 200,000 Americans? It is not really a crackpot theory. Pat Buchanan wrote a book recently, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecesary War." It discusses how the UK and the US blundered into the war against Germany. Like him or not Buchanan is probably one of the best paleo-conservative writers in the US. Many old school Republican conservatives like Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge were quite against World War I and World War II respectively.

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 does work? So Gern what is your suggestion on how we protect ourselves for an oppressive government? Or should we give up our ability to resist altogether.

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 supplies to Germany and allowed them to fire on German submarines. Germany had no beef with the US. Only a US actively aiding her enemy. There was much resistance around that period to going into the war. Ever hear of the America First Committee? I resent the suggestion that makes me a neo-Nazi and think you should apologize. I just don't think saving Britain or France, or the European Jews was worth 200,000 American lives - thats a real lot. Hitler and Stalin would have come to blows anyway and would have destroyed each other. We just aided one evil dictator to take out another. All of this is not the point though. Even if these wars were right/wrong why did Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR violate the constitution to such a greater extent than Bush ever did? And why are they considered among our greatest Presidents?

"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 would are meaningless to satisfy the true intent of the framers of the amendment." That is an interesting point that I have never really thought of. It would be interesting to know what the the word 'arms' referred to? I would assume it referred to personal arms. This is what the vast majority of colonists had in the early days of the country. Very few militia units had artillery pieces which I suppose could be considered the WMD of the day. Or even naval ships. Even the states were forbidden to have their own fleets without the consent of Congress. This seems to say that there was a limit on at least some type of large arm - the ship of the line- the most potent weapon of the day.

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.