This is quasi-off-topic, but I'd really like to get y'all's opinion, especially Hearsay and LN.

 

The 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Could the National Guard be considered the state militia? If so, does the federalization of the National Guard violate the 2nd amendment?

What if other people's beliefs do not match up well with John McCain? I mean, how can we tell whether or not our beliefs match up with him? He flip flops on nearly everything; The war in Iraq, George Bush's Tax Cuts, Gay Marriage.

 

Obama seems to be doing some shifting himself.........http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25404397/

I believe in keeping the 2nd Amendment as is. The real debate becomes on what type of firearms can the public have, etc.

 

As to your analogy with the Revolution, the reality is that the private citizenry of today would be hard pressed to match the firepower of government militia or army. In the 18th century there was not that large of a difference (cannon aside).

 

One telling historical issue to me is that the 2nd Amendment was conceived and adopted on the heels of the Shay's Rebellion of 1786-7 when a militia of disgruntled veterans and citizens attempted to overthrow a government that was taxing them too much and imprisoning debtors. It was put down by a militia unit that struggled to be placed in the field. This 2nd Amendment came as a result of compromise of both a solid standing army for the central government and a local armed citizenry to defend themselves.

 

The minutemen did not play a vital role in winning the war of Independence. They were at Lexington and Concord, and basically a militia mob held Bunker/Breeds Hill but it was the lack of military discipline from the militia's that hindered Washington and the American efforts for years. It was not until the army was trained and experienced enough did it produce victories like Monmouth, Guilford Court House and Yorktown. (Experience and guerilla tactics had to have helped some in Trenton and Princeton but that was the regular army for the most part)

 

 

As a historical person myself, I am impressed.

Oh baloney. Put down your Democratic kool aid, quit accepting Obama's spin ads as Gospel and do some research. Of the three you mentioned, only one has any merit. He has consistently been in support of the Iraq war and is and has always been opposed to gay marriage to the best of my knowledge. If you have a statement from McCain saying he is or has been in favor of gay marriage, I'd like to see it (and don't tell me what his MySpace Page said; here is a link addressing that: http://mike.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/27/633799-hacking-john-mccain) because I have never heard McCain say he is in favor of gay marriage. You provide a link to where McCain stated that he was at one time in favor of gay marriage and I'll admit I was wrong, but I doubt you are going to be able to provide such a link.

 

As for Bush's tax cuts, yes years ago he was opposed to them. And now (and for some time) he has been in favor of the tax cuts. So I'll give you that one. But that sure as heck doesn't qualify as nearly everything. Heck, I'll even throw you a bone and say he flipped flopped on off shore drilling. As I posted in another thread, I think the changing energy situation merited a change in his position and I actually commend him for being willing to re-assess his position on that issue. I wouldn't be in favor of it either if gas was $2 a gallon. I am now.

 

And those two issues(or arguably one issue) are (is) "nearly everything"? Come on. Make credible posts if you want to be considered as credible.

 

Bottom line: There is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever have beliefs across the board that are as liberal as Obama's and there is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever attempt to appoint a justice to the SC that is as liberal as the one that Obama would appoint. The fact that you threw up such a ridiculous post leads me to conclude that my post has you very worried about its logic.

 

Definately not baloney. It's a big ole fried baloney sandwich. He is definately a flip-flopper. Check out the conflicting stances he took on the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Definately not baloney. It's a big ole fried baloney sandwich. He is definately a flip-flopper. Check out the conflicting stances he took on the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

 

:laugh:Do you have a link?:laugh:

 

That was funny.

This is quasi-off-topic, but I'd really like to get y'all's opinion, especially Hearsay and LN.

 

The 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Could the National Guard be considered the state militia? If so, does the federalization of the National Guard violate the 2nd amendment?

 

I'm not Hearsay or Leatherneck, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

I always have considered the National Guard to be the state milita, and from the way that I read the Constitution considerd the "well regulated" State Milita(National Guard) to be who is considerd to be the people who have the right to bear arms. (My personal belif has no issue with any citizen haveing a right to bear arms, but if I was on the SC, I would not be able to judge that way) I've never really thought through if a federalized National Guard violates the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't seem like something that should be just thrown out as ridiculous. I'll have to think about it.

I'm not Hearsay or Leatherneck, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I always have considered the National Guard to be the state milita, and from the way that I read the Constitution considerd the "well regulated" State Milita(National Guard) to be who is considerd to be the people who have the right to bear arms. (My personal belif has no issue with any citizen haveing a right to bear arms, but if I was on the SC, I would not be able to judge that way) I've never really thought through if a federalized National Guard violates the 2nd Amendment, but doesn't seem like something that should be just thrown out as ridiculous. I'll have to think about it.

 

Hey, you definately have potential with Math's Comedy Caravan.

Definately not baloney. It's a big ole fried baloney sandwich. He is definately a flip-flopper. Check out the conflicting stances he took on the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

 

:lol: Too funny, Math!

Oh baloney. Put down your Democratic kool aid, quit accepting Obama's spin ads as Gospel and do some research. Of the three you mentioned, only one has any merit. He has consistently been in support of the Iraq war and is and has always been opposed to gay marriage to the best of my knowledge. If you have a statement from McCain saying he is or has been in favor of gay marriage, I'd like to see it (and don't tell me what his MySpace Page said; here is a link addressing that: http://mike.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/27/633799-hacking-john-mccain) because I have never heard McCain say he is in favor of gay marriage. You provide a link to where McCain stated that he was at one time in favor of gay marriage and I'll admit I was wrong, but I doubt you are going to be able to provide such a link.

 

As for Bush's tax cuts, yes years ago he was opposed to them. And now (and for some time) he has been in favor of the tax cuts. So I'll give you that one. But that sure as heck doesn't qualify as nearly everything. Heck, I'll even throw you a bone and say he flipped flopped on off shore drilling. As I posted in another thread, I think the changing energy situation merited a change in his position and I actually commend him for being willing to re-assess his position on that issue. I wouldn't be in favor of it either if gas was $2 a gallon. I am now.

 

And those two issues(or arguably one issue) are (is) "nearly everything"? Come on. Make credible posts if you want to be considered as credible.

 

Bottom line: There is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever have beliefs across the board that are as liberal as Obama's and there is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever attempt to appoint a justice to the SC that is as liberal as the one that Obama would appoint. The fact that you threw up such a ridiculous post leads me to conclude that my post has you very worried about its logic.

Excellent post, LN!!! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Here is McCain's comments on the decision.

 

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

 

“Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

 

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.:thumb:

Here is Obama's comments on the decision.

 

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

 

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

 

What a CROCK!!!

 

First of all, he states he believes the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but that local jurisdictions may pass common-sense regulations. So he’s saying the complete gun ban in DC was a common-sense regulation, after all, he was in favor of it.

Obama has supported a proposal to override state concealed-carry laws with a nationwide ban on concealed weapons. He’s said he’d like to bring back the Clinton administration's ban on “assault weapons” that was overturned by the then-Republican-controlled Congress. Before he ran for the U.S. Senate, he was in favor of a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park.

Here is Obama's comments on the decision.

 

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

 

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

 

What a CROCK!!!

 

First of all, he states he believes the Second Amendment secures an individual right, but that local jurisdictions may pass common-sense regulations. So he’s saying the complete gun ban in DC was a common-sense regulation, after all, he was in favor of it.

Obama has supported a proposal to override state concealed-carry laws with a nationwide ban on concealed weapons. He’s said he’d like to bring back the Clinton administration's ban on “assault weapons” that was overturned by the then-Republican-controlled Congress. Before he ran for the U.S. Senate, he was in favor of a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or park.

I love this part.

Oh baloney. Put down your Democratic kool aid, quit accepting Obama's spin ads as Gospel and do some research. Of the three you mentioned, only one has any merit. He has consistently been in support of the Iraq war and is and has always been opposed to gay marriage to the best of my knowledge. If you have a statement from McCain saying he is or has been in favor of gay marriage, I'd like to see it (and don't tell me what his MySpace Page said; here is a link addressing that: http://mike.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/27/633799-hacking-john-mccain) because I have never heard McCain say he is in favor of gay marriage. You provide a link to where McCain stated that he was at one time in favor of gay marriage and I'll admit I was wrong, but I doubt you are going to be able to provide such a link.

 

As for Bush's tax cuts, yes years ago he was opposed to them. And now (and for some time) he has been in favor of the tax cuts. So I'll give you that one. But that sure as heck doesn't qualify as nearly everything. Heck, I'll even throw you a bone and say he flipped flopped on off shore drilling. As I posted in another thread, I think the changing energy situation merited a change in his position and I actually commend him for being willing to re-assess his position on that issue. I wouldn't be in favor of it either if gas was $2 a gallon. I am now.

 

And those two issues(or arguably one issue) are (is) "nearly everything"? Come on. Make credible posts if you want to be considered as credible.

 

Bottom line: There is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever have beliefs across the board that are as liberal as Obama's and there is zero doubt as to whether McCain would ever attempt to appoint a justice to the SC that is as liberal as the one that Obama would appoint. The fact that you threw up such a ridiculous post leads me to conclude that my post has you very worried about its logic.

 

 

 

I believe your research has been carried out George W. Bush style. McCain is on the record flip-flopping on nearly every issue you can speak of. This is no secret at all those in the political business. And Yes, gay marriage is one of them...and he did his flipping and subsequent flopping in a span of 11 minutes in a forum hosted by Chris Matthews. I'll be glad to provide you with the direct quotes if you wish. Name the issue, and I'll likely be able to find a flip,followed by the old gentleman's proverbial flop.

That is an interesting take on the lack of colonial organized army.

 

The way I have heard other historians put it is that the colonists had very few trained and organized army regulars, and RELIED upon citizen militia to make up the difference. While the militia often ran after the first volley, their mere presence required Cornwallis and Burgoyne to account for them and prevented the immediate overwhelming of colonial forces. In that sense, the militia bought Washington just enough time to train regular army and eventually to secure victory.

 

I guess its all in how you look at it.

 

 

By 1778 or so much of the militia had been in the field so they weren't as green as they were earlier. Still, they led to the defeat at Cowpens, Breed's Hill and other places.

 

That said, this view of militia helped the Colonials at Guilford Court House (portrayed loosely in The Patriot and probably one of the few things closest to history in the movie.). The use of the Militia to fire a volley and flee led to Cornwalis overcommitting his troops and the Colonial's to spring a trap that led to the British retreating to Virginia.

 

The real prize of American soldiery was after Von Steuben had a winter to train the officers and non-coms and then the field soldiers - then the Colonials began to understand and utilize battlefield tactics better.

 

Like you said, it's all on how you look at it.

By 1778 or so much of the militia had been in the field so they weren't as green as they were earlier. Still, they led to the defeat at Cowpens, Breed's Hill and other places.

 

That said, this view of militia helped the Colonials at Guilford Court House (portrayed loosely in The Patriot and probably one of the few things closest to history in the movie.). The use of the Militia to fire a volley and flee led to Cornwalis overcommitting his troops and the Colonial's to spring a trap that led to the British retreating to Virginia.

 

The real prize of American soldiery was after Von Steuben had a winter to train the officers and non-coms and then the field soldiers - then the Colonials began to understand and utilize battlefield tactics better.

 

Like you said, it's all on how you look at it.

 

 

 

Okay, okay, so I'm not the only history scholar on here.