Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on September 10, 2005, 05:10:42 PM
-
This just happened on FOX news.
Reporter was asking a firearms dealer the following question:
"WHY are gun sales among Gulf Coast and New Orleans residents skyrocketing?"
I would have thought the answer was painfully obvious.
-
The criminal element sees a golden opportunity to commit nefarious acts in the wake of the lawlessness and destruction, so naturally they're down at the gun shops stocking up. ;)
-
I forget which side you're on VOR, so I'll just say this.
The criminal element wouldn't be able to purchase guns legally. So from this piece of information, we can logically deduce that it's not criminals buying guns.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I forget which side you're on VOR, so I'll just say this.
The criminal element wouldn't be able to purchase guns legally. So from this piece of information, we can logically deduce that it's not criminals buying guns.
How did you deduce that??? Not all criminals are felons or would be unable to purchase guns. Yeah we all know criminals don't buy guns :rolleyes:
-
Raider, the focus of that segment was about average citizens rushing to buy weapons.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I forget which side you're on VOR, so I'll just say this.
The criminal element wouldn't be able to purchase guns legally. So from this piece of information, we can logically deduce that it's not criminals buying guns.
uhhhh......... you've never seen people buying a guns and reselling them to people that can't leagaly own one have you?
-
Shuckins, on a serious note it should indeed be painfully obvious.
I also heard one of the talking heads ask an on-scene reporter this morning if the scene there was "shocking" and "devastating".
Sometimes I can't help but think Don Henley had it right.
-
Originally posted by dmf
uhhhh......... you've never seen people buying a guns and reselling them to people that can't leagaly own one have you?
So your saying you see this? Don't imagine you report it do you?
Straw purchasing is a bad idea since the gun can be traced back to the original purchaser.
-
Well in the neighborhood I live in, most folks have 5 or 6 fire arms. So no one had to go out and buy any. I lent out a few as did others. My neighborhood was a very bad environment for looters and it seems the word spread as there are no deaths so far.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Not all criminals are felons or would be unable to purchase guns. Yeah we all know criminals don't buy guns :rolleyes:
Someone without a criminal record probably would be more considered a wannabe Jesse James.
A career criminal that purchased a gun through legal channels would be known simply as Stupid.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
So your saying you see this? Don't imagine you report it do you?
Straw purchasing is a bad idea since the gun can be traced back to the original purchaser.
I don't have to report it, it was on the news a couple of months ago, illeagle gun dealers come here from other parts of the east coast because its easier to get guns here in Virginia.
Oh and also, if the gun dealer reports a gun stolen, then its not tracked back to the man he sold it to.
-
Right,
So he reports hundreds of guns being stolen on a weekly basis, reporting the make and serial numbers in the process. Then, those guns all turn up as crime guns. Ya, that won't cause any suspicion...
-
In my younger days there was a big grass fire out in the swamp. We worked till 3:00 to put it out. No glory, no media, just do what you got to do.
Next morning we drive back out there.
Someone had lit a small backfire burning in the short grass along the hiway.
There was a cameraman on his belly, almost getting his hair singed so he could get this impressive shot of the flames.
Those flames were never over 5 " tall, but that night on the news they looked 15' tall.
Moral of the story you may ask?
A: Never believe anything the media says that you can not verify independantly.
B Never believe what they show you, cause chances are its blown WAY beyond proportion. (like that fire was)
C They are always going to show you the worst they can find. And they are going to present it in the worst possible light.
-
reporters are all pretty much liberal no world experiance weeinies... Them giving people interviews is like raider talking about the gun culture.
An American reporter interviewed a finn who fought in WWII..
He asked the finn if he had fought much.. the finn said "yes, a lot"
The reporter asked if he had shot at other men "yes, often"
The reporter asked if that was hard for him to do.
"yes, they tend to duck and hide and run in a zig zag pattern."
lazs
-
HAHA! :rofl
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Right,
So he reports hundreds of guns being stolen on a weekly basis, reporting the make and serial numbers in the process. Then, those guns all turn up as crime guns. Ya, that won't cause any suspicion...
Hundreds of guns? Oh yea just go off the deep end will you, not all of them are. But I do know for a fact that its easier to buy a gun here in Va than anywhere else in the world. and a lot of places here don't do the required checks, they just do the required paperworkand send you off with a handgun. A local news guy here proved it once, he went to a gun dealer, bought a gun and had it in his hand the next day, but the paperwork said he waited the required 10 days, when the news station went back a week later, the gun shop was gone,the police tracked the dealer down, and said that theres no way to know who he sold guns to.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Them giving people interviews is like raider talking about the gun culture.
lazs
Or like lasz a voting, government paycheck receiving, constitution quoting Anarchist. :lol
-
Originally posted by dmf
Hundreds of guns? Oh yea just go off the deep end will you, not all of them are. But I do know for a fact that its easier to buy a gun here in Va than anywhere else in the world. and a lot of places here don't do the required checks, they just do the required paperworkand send you off with a handgun. A local news guy here proved it once, he went to a gun dealer, bought a gun and had it in his hand the next day, but the paperwork said he waited the required 10 days, when the news station went back a week later, the gun shop was gone,the police tracked the dealer down, and said that theres no way to know who he sold guns to.
So you are advocating enforcing laws? Looks like we agree. Assuming the reporter went to an actual dealer he would not be too tuff to track down given they are federally licensed. Either that or it stinks of a contrived story.
-
Yes I advocate gun control laws. I can't understand why anybody outside the military needs handguns. I can see people that hunt having rifels and shotguns, but why do we all need the biggest handgun made? I live in the city, I don't need a gun. as for a burgler, I have a dog, a phone, and a softball bat.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Yes I advocate gun control laws. I can't understand why anybody outside the military needs handguns. I can see people that hunt having rifels and shotguns, but why do we all need the biggest handgun made? I live in the city, I don't need a gun. as for a burgler, I have a dog, a phone, and a softball bat.
So you figure that since you don't want something noone else should have it either?
On that token, Since you don't belong to a professional team you certainly don't need to have that deadly weapon.
-
OK look first. I don't care if you have a handgun or not, I just think that all gun control laws should apply to everyone owning a gun.
Second. I've had the softball bat since I was in high school on the softball team, anybody breaks in to my house and I'm going to hit a home run on their head.
PLease explain to me why you would need a 44 automag for home defense.
-
Most gun control laws are written to make the government look like they are "hard on crime". They have little to nothing to really do with public safety.
Governmnets like easy answers and "sound bite" solutions to problems, including crime, and we get fed this pablum of mush minded crap to put the voters at ease.
"What is your governments position on gun control"
"We think there should be restrictions on X, Y, Z, so decent folks can live in a world without fear, blah blah blah..."
.
Next question.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Second. I've had the softball bat since I was in high school on the softball team, anybody breaks in to my house and I'm going to hit a home run on their head.
PLease explain to me why you would need a 44 automag for home defense.
Ummm mainly due to the fact that while your in the warm up box homie is going to cap your ***. That would be my guess.
-
I don't need the guns I own; I want them. Some people do need them. Alot of people think they need them but probably don't.
At any rate, the fact that they want them and can legally own them is enough for me.
-
do you even know what a 44 automag is? it does sound mean doesn't it?
Actually, for defense, a 12 guage is far better than a 44. Your missing the point.
The weapon is irrelevant. What is relevant is the person who possesses it. Hence laws like the"assault weapons" ban had and did nothing to prevent crime but rather served to dupe folks like you.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Ummm mainly due to the fact that while your in the warm up box homie is going to cap your ***. That would be my guess.
or if there's two of them....lol
EDIT:
Dmf what if you miss your first swing. Guns usually give you a second shot.
-
Softball? :huh
High school softball? :huh
Are you a chick?
We had a company softball team but that is different
When I was in school only the girls had softball teams.
Besides if you arent playing now why do you need a bat? i think it shows something wrong, if you are preparing a tool meant for playing a game to use against your fellow man, especially if he is one of our poor and underpriveliged looking to better his living enviroment.
-
Two of my favorite reporterette stories from NO...
1.) A CG helo pilot climbs out of his chair after a 30-hour non-stop sortie and she stick the microphone in his face and asks how he feels.
2.) Film of a rooftop rescue the day (maybe two) after the hurricane, the helo is so low that shingles are flying off the battered roof and she remarks "Wow, Bob, it looks like the storm is still having feirce winds out there".
-
Why not just make it safe enough so that civilians dont need guns to protect themselves?
-
dmf... I assume that you are young. I am not trying to make light of your views based on that it is just that you appear to be very young based on your views on how effective a baseball bat is for self defense.
I would agree that in a lot of cases... a baseball bat in the hands of a young and strong person with the agresssive ability and hand eye co ordination to weild it would be pretty effective.
I only ask you this... would your dad do as well? How bout your grandpa? How bout the infirm old man or lady in the next building? How would you do against an armed intruder or... several intruders? Do you carry a baseball bat with you? How do you do that? has it got a sling or do you just carry it? You do know also that a baseball bat in a car without other "baseball parefenallia" is illegal in many states?
As for the dealers in question... There are very strict rules governing FFL (federal firearms licence) holders... with substantial penalties for not obeying the simplest rules... if the government makes a mistake on the forms... no big deal.. if the FFL dealer does... fines and/or imprisonment..
That is not to say that some will take the chance and sell guns illegaly... but it is rare. Also... stolen guns sell for much less than legal guns.
You are welcome to not own a gun... I would just ask that you not restrict my right to in any way. Your city probly has very strict gun control laws allready... if not, I can name some for you that have such and you can move there and enjoy whatever safety you feel that offers. but...
Like it or not... the second amendment is not about hunting. I do also hope that you realize that some of us, even some of us who can swing a bat... feel that being out in the country or rural areas that we might need to defend for hours or days until help arrives... When we see how well the government is doing protecting people in NO it doesn't exactly make us want to give up our second amendment rights.
lazs
-
nielsen... how would you propose we do that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why not just make it safe enough so that civilians dont need guns to protect themselves?
Are you aware that people spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on hunting and competitive shooting sports?
For the vast majority of Americans ownership is about enjoying a sport. It's not just the garuntee of the right to live.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Are you aware that people spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on hunting and competitive shooting sports?
For the vast majority of Americans ownership is about enjoying a sport. It's not just the garuntee of the right to live.
I know. Its the same here. There are more guns per capita in Norway than in the US. Hunting is big here. Most of the weapons are shotguns and rifles.
Reason behind my comment is because the thread is about skyrocketing sales of weapons in NO and Gulf Coast. Is the hunting season opening down there now? ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why not just make it safe enough so that civilians dont need guns to protect themselves?
Because some of us aren't too keen on living in a police state. Which would probably be the only way to drastically reduce crime in the US. Keep in mind our culture enjoys making heros & folk heros out of some of our most notorious criminals. Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Al Capone... everybody has heard of Bonnie & Clyde.. but can anybody name the officers that gunned them down without having to google it?
-
nielsen...your country proves a point... as do the swiss... if people are law abiding then it doesn't matter how many guns there are.... the guns cause no problems..
The U.S. proves that... that if there is a huge criminal class that guns slow down the crime.
so... if everyone was sane.... then everyone could own guns with no problem.... If a portion of the population is sociopathic then everyone needs to have guns.
lazs
-
The real story of the US is a disfuntional criminal justice system.
If something like NO happened in Norway would you feel more comfortable with or without a weapon to protect your family?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
The real story of the US is a disfuntional criminal justice system.
Can anyone verify? I have heard twice now that they opened the doors of the jails in NO before/during/after the hurricane and let all the inmates out. I'm skeptical that even the corrupt NO establishment would do that, but I've been suprised at much of what they did or didn't do.
Anyone?
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Can anyone verify? I have heard twice now that they opened the doors of the jails in NO before/during/after the hurricane and let all the inmates out. I'm skeptical that even the corrupt NO establishment would do that, but I've been suprised at much of what they did or didn't do.
Anyone?
Not quite. There's a picture floating around of alot of people sitting on the end of an overpass, lots & lots of them dressed in orange. Wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a few managed to sneak off, but it seems like they still have the bulk of them.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nielsen...your country proves a point... as do the swiss... if people are law abiding then it doesn't matter how many guns there are.... the guns cause no problems..
The U.S. proves that... that if there is a huge criminal class that guns slow down the crime.
so... if everyone was sane.... then everyone could own guns with no problem.... If a portion of the population is sociopathic then everyone needs to have guns.
lazs
Yup.
Never had a problem with guns as a tool as long as they are kept locked up and safe. A plain hunting rifle or a regular shotgun is not very attractive to criminal elements. A pistol, a revolver or something that looks like an assault rifle is far more attractive.
You need to be an active member of a pistol club to own one here. To own a hunting weapon you need a hunting license.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Why not just make it safe enough so that civilians dont need guns to protect themselves?
Nilsen,
That's the problem with the left here. They really don't understand Gun owners position and they think if they just throw enough money and social programs at it crime will go away. The later has the opposite effect on crime.
As far as ownership goes, those who give up their means of deffense are subject to an oppressive govt. Then there's those unknown reasons like flood, hurricanes, and of course laz's personal favorite....zomies. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
As far as ownership goes, those who give up their means of deffense are subject to an oppressive govt.
If you lived somewere in the third world then yes you _may_ need to protect yourself from the oppressive goverment. But here in the civilized part there is no need. :)
-
I have a spare tinfoil cap if you want Nils...
-
a hat is not enough, i need a complete suit
-
(http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/phesfront.jpg)
(http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/chaplinfront.jpg)
-
heheh
hahah
LOLOLOLOL
He said ..I was on the "softball" team"
I have a bat......
im still laughing
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Ummm mainly due to the fact that while your in the warm up box homie is going to cap your ***. That would be my guess.
At least I'll be trying to protect my daughter not in a corner begging for somethingthat isn't going to happen.
-
monkey love?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dmf... I assume that you are young. I am not trying to make light of your views based on that it is just that you appear to be very young based on your views on how effective a baseball bat is for self defense.
I would agree that in a lot of cases... a baseball bat in the hands of a young and strong person with the agresssive ability and hand eye co ordination to weild it would be pretty effective.
I only ask you this... would your dad do as well? How bout your grandpa? How bout the infirm old man or lady in the next building? How would you do against an armed intruder or... several intruders? Do you carry a baseball bat with you? How do you do that? has it got a sling or do you just carry it? You do know also that a baseball bat in a car without other "baseball parefenallia" is illegal in many states?
As for the dealers in question... There are very strict rules governing FFL (federal firearms licence) holders... with substantial penalties for not obeying the simplest rules... if the government makes a mistake on the forms... no big deal.. if the FFL dealer does... fines and/or imprisonment..
That is not to say that some will take the chance and sell guns illegaly... but it is rare. Also... stolen guns sell for much less than legal guns.
You are welcome to not own a gun... I would just ask that you not restrict my right to in any way. Your city probly has very strict gun control laws allready... if not, I can name some for you that have such and you can move there and enjoy whatever safety you feel that offers. but...
Like it or not... the second amendment is not about hunting. I do also hope that you realize that some of us, even some of us who can swing a bat... feel that being out in the country or rural areas that we might need to defend for hours or days until help arrives... When we see how well the government is doing protecting people in NO it doesn't exactly make us want to give up our second amendment rights.
lazs
Yes I'm young, no I don't keep my bat in my car. But I bet I can still hit a home run on the side of a inturders head, if need be.
I'm not trying to restrict your right to own a gun, I just don't see
the point in a hand held cannon for self defense. And I'd liek to see the gun laws followed by everybody so that othorities can know who has one and who doesn't.
-
actually, a larger caliber gun would be what you want for self defense.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Softball? :huh
High school softball? :huh
Are you a chick?
We had a company softball team but that is different
When I was in school only the girls had softball teams.
Besides if you arent playing now why do you need a bat? i think it shows something wrong, if you are preparing a tool meant for playing a game to use against your fellow man, especially if he is one of our poor and underpriveliged looking to better his living enviroment.
Yes high school softball. I kept my bat and my glove and I even have a hot pink practice ball too. I still play with some of my firends when we get togeather too. We're actually going to try to get an adult team going too. but I think we'd have to let guys play too.
-
Originally posted by dmf
At least I'll be trying to protect my daughter not in a corner begging for somethingthat isn't going to happen.
Ummmm...begging for something that isn`t going to happen? Wanna clear that up?
With an armed burglar, you would be just as well off with the sports page from the newspaper than you would be with the softball bat............unless maybe he keeled over with laughter.
-
Well at least I'll make the attempt, and not just scream like some stupid blonde from a b rated scifi movie.
-
dmf... thank you for your reply... I am not sure I understood it tho. I am getting the understanding that you don't have the bat with you most of the time that you would say is good enough for you to defend yourself and others with? Yet... you seem to be saying that.... even without it you can still "hit a home run"? sorry if I seem dense but I am not a sports guy... What do you mean?
As for large caliber weapons.... you need to either do the research or simply believe me... bullet energy is what stops agression... short explanation is.... energy is a combination of caliber (or weight) and velocity (bullet speed). Proven stoppers (not killers... 80% of people shot with handguns survive) proven stoppers (stop the fight) are either large caliber or "magnum" rounds such as the .357
As to regestration... In every case including england and australia (for modern examples) the first step in confiscation is regestration... you can't confiscate what you don't know about eh?
Now... to simply say that you believe the governments line that they have not intention of confiscation shows a rather touching naievity and.... a lack of historical perspective.
lastly.... I would not have you as my enemy... I believe that you have gotten some faulty info on guns in the past. I would be extremely happy to answer any questions you have on firearms that I am able.... If you find that I have lied to you in any way about them then I would expect you to dissregard what I say... I would expect the same thing would apply to the people that are telling you about firearms now...
For instance... if someone told you that getting rid of "assault weapons" was getting machine guns off the street and ridding us of rifles that are too powerful to even hunt with.... I would expect that you would feel betrayed and never listen to that person again.
lazs
-
Nilsen..so in this wonderful "civilized " world...is this the place with no hooligans and thugs?..or is this the place where the police show up before a crime is comitted?
dmf
if we are talking about burglars coming into your house to rob...
1) do they think you are NOT at home?
2) do they think you ARE home? ( even worse)
either of theses choices ...do you think they would enter your home with no protection for them selves?..a knife?..crowbar..gun ect...
Unless you are trained in defense with your wiffle ball bat..you may be screwed
You take a swing with your large unweilding bat..you miss..then you get stabbed by the 2 crack heads that just broke in your window...id rather have a machette then a bat ..is your house big enuff to practice batting cage swings?
Really..depending on your bat for protection is really bad..I would recomend a tazer or pepper spray atleast....
Its called stand off distance..you really really should not allow someone who means you and your family harm close enuff to touch you or even get that close
If you dont feel comfortable with a firearm..then you need to get a non lethal weapon..like pepper spray..or they have great tazers now..Or go practice shooting with a friend..Its great..its not only fun..but practical.
Shotguns are extremly easy to use..and you dont have to be a great shot...if you here a window break..and you pump that slide on a 12 or hell even a 20guauge,,,any fool that keeps coming in..is defntly worthy of a "bustn a cap-in-hi-***"
BUT!!!! YOU MUST!!! MUST KEEP theses gusn safe and secured..there are a large variety of quick acces locks on the market
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189328_osafe.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/842_1121189739_safe.jpg)
Lazs..btw my cousin Mark who I received all those guns from ..did have those push button revolver release for ammo...you were defntly right..much bettr
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You do know also that a baseball bat in a car without other "baseball parefenallia" is illegal in many states?
lazs
lol so you can carry a gun in your car with you but not a bat? wow that is ridiculous **** if I ever heard it. Might very well be true but still ridiculous.
-
raider... in kalifornia that is the law... you can't carry a baseball bat in the car (unlocked) unless there is other baseball parefenallia such as batting gloves or mits... the state does not allow you to carry a loaded firearm (anymore) in the vehicle. At one time you could do either of those things but that was decades ago and people are apparently genetically different now than then or.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore
lazs
-
Now.... I don't play baseball and don't evern think I would use a bat for defense...
Basicaly... I don't give a whit about bats but.... I would never have voted for the restrictions we have on em now.
perhaps that is the real difference between how you think and how I think.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore
I think that is what they call "progressiveness" now lazs, they are running from the term liberal as fast as they can. Who is opposed to progress right?
-
Hey Greencloud:
1. Nice guns.
2. Clean up your room.
-
well..... both rot and rust are progressive... as is all decay. These things cause the eventual colapse of strong buildings.... this is "progressive".
Liberal was not a bad word at all until the current crop who claim it did so... i imagine that "progressive" will suffer the same fate once people realize who is describing themselves as such and why.
then they will have to find a new word.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
. the state does not allow you to carry a loaded firearm (anymore) in the vehicle. At one time you could do either of those things but that was decades ago and people are apparently genetically different now than then or.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore
lazs
Texas just got part of an assinine law redone and went into effect Sept. 1st.
Before this, as it stood for years, you could only carry a concealed handgun in the car if you were "traveling" to another county. ( I believe at one time it also read at least 3 county lines crossed) Even then it was a very iffy situation. The way the law read if they so wanted, you could be arrested and it was your responsibility from that point to prove your innocence. In other words a license to jack you up if they didn`t like the way you looked.
The new law changed the definition of "traveling" to read if you are in your vehicle, not involved in criminal activity, etc.
It`s still not perfect, but a step in the right direction for a change.
-
I have the bat at home its for me to use at home, I can't go around town carrying it everywhere, besides at work they'd get a little wierded out
As for the home run comment, ever see a batter hit a home run? thats how much power I'm going to put behind the bat when I hit sombody in the head.
Maybe I can do it maybe I can't, but its worth a try, since I can't see myself having a gun in my house.
-
Thats your call and no one here has a problem with that. The question is why do you have a problem with others using other means?
-
Do whatever works for you dmf. You probably will never need so much as a bat, truth be told.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I have the bat at home its for me to use at home, I can't go around town carrying it everywhere, besides at work they'd get a little wierded out
As for the home run comment, ever see a batter hit a home run? thats how much power I'm going to put behind the bat when I hit sombody in the head.
Maybe I can do it maybe I can't, but its worth a try, since I can't see myself having a gun in my house.
If you let even one of them get close enough for you to swing at it's will probably be too late.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... in kalifornia that is the law... you can't carry a baseball bat in the car (unlocked) unless there is other baseball parefenallia such as batting gloves or mits... the state does not allow you to carry a loaded firearm (anymore) in the vehicle. At one time you could do either of those things but that was decades ago and people are apparently genetically different now than then or.. simply have no idea how to handle freedom anymore
lazs
What is the charge? I looked through CA law and didn't see it. linky?
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud Nilsen..so in this wonderful "civilized " world...is this the place with no hooligans and thugs?..or is this the place where the police show up before a crime is comitted?
hehe
What im saying is why not use all that energy to fight the problem instead of having to defend yourself from the symptoms later?
Isnt it because so many people think guns are cool to own and fondle?
-
raider... I don't know off hand.. I will ask the cops I know.. It is the same charge tho as having a tire iron or billy club in the car.
I'm off today.. gonna go sight in my M1 garand (that is a WW2 era semi auto rifle in 30-06) with some ammo I reloaded. Will probly see the police out at my facility thursday and will ask em then.
lazs
-
neilsen... why not do both? wouldn't that be the prudent thing?
I really don't know how you get people to not be violent criminals but am willing to listen to your ideas.... in the mean time... until everyone evolves or we become a police state.... I will do the prudent thing and arm myself against such an eventuality.... if others prefer not to... that is their business.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
neilsen... why not do both? wouldn't that be the prudent thing?
I really don't know how you get people to not be violent criminals but am willing to listen to your ideas.... in the mean time... until everyone evolves or we become a police state.... I will do the prudent thing and arm myself against such an eventuality.... if others prefer not to... that is their business.
lazs
How about rasing the standard of living of the poor people and educate them. Get a sufficent policeforce and justice system that can cope with crime.
Yes, its expencive but it can be done. It has been done here even if its far from perfect and never will be. Nobody needs to arm themselves to be safe here, and even the police dont carry guns on their person.
-
I don't own firearms because I feel I need them. Protection is a bonus.
The major problem in the US is the criminal justice system not gun ownership by the citizens.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
How about rasing the standard of living of the poor people and educate them. Get a sufficent policeforce and justice system that can cope with crime.
Seeing as how the population difference is so large, I don`t see how the three cops that had to be hired there can compare to the U.S. :)
Yes, its expencive but it can be done. It has been done here even if its far from perfect and never will be. Nobody needs to arm themselves to be safe here, and even the police dont carry guns on their person
Well, it doesn`t appear that it has been all ironed out according to this.
------------------------------------------------
"Discovery of oil and gas in adjacent waters in the late 1960s boosted Norway's economic fortunes. The current focus is on containing spending on the extensive welfare system and planning for the time when petroleum reserves are depleted"
-------------------------------------------------
Might want to get it all cleared up there first, then we can see what it will do on a very small scale and work on it from there.l (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html)
-
neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...
I agree that criminals should be arrested and tried but that is not happening here. I would agree that poor people should have opportunity to rise but... it is hard if they are not even here legally or speak the language.
In short... We do have a large criminal class with no solutions.
firearms are not causing the social problems we are having and so there is no need to restrict the constitutional rights of gun owners... we allready have 20,000 gun laws on the books and none of em have reduced crime or poverty at all.
Please... name one solution to our problems at a time and we will discuss it's feasability and merits or lack thereof.
I'll start out.... carve out some godless frozen little spot on the planet fit only for vikings and ice bears where criminals wouldn't live and where no illegal in his right mind would sneak across the border of and then abondon the U.S. to anyone who wants it.
lazs
-
The welfare system is not really a problem, but there will be need for adjustments along the way. That system is not perfect either and it never will be.
Containing the spending is actually a luxury problem. We have two political parties tho that wants to spend and spend all day while the others wants to keep it at a minimum.
What will happen when the oil is gone is anybodys guess, but by the time that happens the petrolium fund will be huge.
The parties that won the election on monday will focus on really prepearing for when its gone. It wont hurt us too bad.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...
I agree that criminals should be arrested and tried but that is not happening here. I would agree that poor people should have opportunity to rise but... it is hard if they are not even here legally or speak the language.
In short... We do have a large criminal class with no solutions.
firearms are not causing the social problems we are having and so there is no need to restrict the constitutional rights of gun owners... we allready have 20,000 gun laws on the books and none of em have reduced crime or poverty at all.
Please... name one solution to our problems at a time and we will discuss it's feasability and merits or lack thereof.
I'll start out.... carve out some godless frozen little spot on the planet fit only for vikings and ice bears where criminals wouldn't live and where no illegal in his right mind would sneak across the border of and then abondon the U.S. to anyone who wants it.
lazs
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
What will happen when the oil is gone is anybodys guess
Mass rioting, civil anarchy, etc.
Better saddle up and grab yourself a shootin iron partner. It`s not too late.
Just remember..shoot low sherrif, he`s riding a Shetland. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Mass rioting, civil anarchy, etc.
Better saddle up and grab yourself a shootin iron partner. It`s not too late.
Just remember..shoot low sherrif, he`s riding a Shetland. :)
Doubtfull :D
We dont need oil, its a nice bonus.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... I don't know off hand.. I will ask the cops I know.. It is the same charge tho as having a tire iron or billy club in the car.
I'm off today.. gonna go sight in my M1 garand (that is a WW2 era semi auto rifle in 30-06) with some ammo I reloaded. Will probly see the police out at my facility thursday and will ask em then.
lazs
I am guessing it is gonna be something to do with the Baton law, but I can't see how they could pass a law saying no baseball bats. If there really is one, I would say CA has finally lost it.
-
:)
California
In California, it is illegal to posses bear gall bladders.
In California, it is illegal to trip horses for entertainment.
In Blythe, California, a person must own two cows in order to legally wear cowboy boots in public.
In Los Angeles, a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than 2 inches, unless he has his wife's consent to beat her with a wider strap. (Loony Laws" by Robert Pelton)
It is illegal to set a mousetrap without a hunting license.
Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of water.
In L.A. it is against the law to complain through the mail that a hotel has cockroaches, even if it is true.
It is illegal to drive more than two thousand sheep down Hollywood Blvd. at one time.
It is illegal to whistle for a lost canary before 7 am in Berkeley, CA.
San Francisco is said to be the only city in the nation to have ordinances guaranteeing sunshine to the masses.
In Cupertino, California, it is illegal to count backwards audibly in hexadecimal.
The good burghers of Redwood City have outlawed the frying of gravy.
In Santa Clara, it is forbidden to dedicate parking spaces to the patron saint of television.
Prostitutes in San Francisco are not obliged to make change for bills larger than $50.
The city of Mountain View proscribes calling pet fish by "names of aggressive content, e.g. 'Biter', 'Killer', 'Sugar-Ray'"
Bicycles may not be ridden without "appropriate fashion accessories" anywhere in Santa Clara County (de facto law).
It is illegal to skateboard on walls "or other vertical surfaces" in Palo Alto.
Wearing a sweatshirt inside-out is deemed a "threatening misdemeanor" in Half-Moon Bay.
In 1930, the City Council of Ontario (California) passed an ordinance forbidding roosters to crow within the city limits.
In Los Angeles, you cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time. (Loony Laws" by Robert Pelton)
In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. (Loony Laws" by Robert Pelton)
Peeling an orange in your hotel room is banned in California (Legal Lunacy)
Los Angeles "Daily News": Have you ever had the urge to rip the tag from a pillow or mattress, despite the warning of dire penalties? Well, it's perfectly legal now, if you live in Colorado. Governor Roy Romer formalized the law by gleefully tearing a label from a pillow at his office. "I've been worrying about the mattress inspector jumping through the window for years," he said.
-
:)
Texas:
A city ordinance states that a person cannot go barefoot without first obtaining a special five-dollar permit.
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
It is Texas law that when two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone. In one of those "true facts" books there was an explanation for this law. It seems that one of the state senators did not want a law passed. To keep this particular law from passing, he attached the train law to it. He hoped that his fellow senators would discover the train law attached, see how ridiculous it was, and not pass the laws. Nobody saw the the train law attached and passed both laws. This may not be the real reason, but it sounds good. And it might explain some of the laws we have to live with.
In Texas, on one other than a registered pharmacist" may sell condoms or other kinds of contraceptives "on the street or other public places." Not even Physicians! Anyone one who tries to make a few extra bucks doing this will be severaly prosecuted for the dire act of "unlawfully practicing medicine."
A recently passed anti-crime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed...
In Lefors, it is illegal to take more than three swallows of beer at any time while standing.
In San Antonio, it is illegal for both sexes to flirt or respond to flirtation using the eyes and/or hands.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...
lazs
Actually the militia was a farce. They were ineffective in battle and fled usually after the first volley. Thats if they even bothered to show up at all. They were very poor as a defense force and even worse as attackers.
A quote from George Washington letter to the Continental Congress, September 24, 1776 (founding Father)
"To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows."
Alexander Hamiliton Federalist Papers
"Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would beat all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which from our own experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."
The militia was a terrible fighting force, unable to defend the US from any attack by regular troops or even large forces of Indians. Basically the only reason it survived so long is the fear of a standing army.
-
Lexington. Concord.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lexington. Concord.
Do you really want me to start listing off the engagements the militia fled from?
You will notice that the quote from George is after Lexington/Concord. He knew it was an isolated victory and it was.
You do of course know that there were 100's of minutemen assembled in lexington green and then they opened the tavern, they got drunk and that number turned into 70. The Brits came, told them to disperse, which they were in the process of doing and then someone fired a shot. (Several sources say it came from the tavern window) The Brits formed, volleyed, and bayonet charged those left in the green. Then on the way back to Boston the minutemen employed hit and run tactics very effectively. Yet this was an isolated victory for the militia and for the most part they were ineffective and a danger to regular troops because of their tendency to flee.
You do of course know that minutemen and militia are not quite the same thing. Minutemen were the cream of the crop(as far as citizen-soldiers go) and the militia well it was the bottum of the crop.
"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such."
-
By gawd if the ATF had of been there it would have all got sorted out. :)
-
The American Revolution started with those ill-trained, worthless militia. At Lexington and Concord.
Did they need further training? Sure. The entire American army had no real training until Louis DuPortail, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, Pulaski, Johann de Kalb, Friedrich von Steuben anmd Gilbert du Montier (the Marquis de Lafayette) showed up to help out.
And who did they train? They trained a lot of former militia and other volunteers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The American Revolution started with those ill-trained, worthless militia. At Lexington and Concord.
Did they need further training? Sure. The entire American army had no real training until Louis DuPortail, Thaddeus Kosciuszko, Pulaski, Johann de Kalb, Friedrich von Steuben anmd Gilbert du Montier (the Marquis de Lafayette) showed up to help out.
And who did they train? They trained a lot of former militia and other volunteers.
Even after training the militia was still worthless. The Continental Army was remarkebly improved but the militia was still by a huge margian, worthless in battle.
The militia if anything left other troops exposed because you never knew when they would flee/desert/ or abandon the campaigns. Hell and that was IF you could even get them together to fight in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
By gawd if the ATF had of been there it would have all got sorted out. :)
lol no doubt there.
-
Who do you think made up the initial cadre of the Contintental Army?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Even after training the militia was still worthless. The Continental Army was remarkebly improved but the militia was still by a huge margian, worthless in battle.
The militia if anything left other troops exposed because you never knew when they would flee/desert/ or abandon the campaigns. Hell and that was IF you could even get them together to fight in the first place.
They did quite well even at lex and concord.. you might want to read past chapter 3..
-
He might also want to check out some former militia officers that were in the Continental Army.
-
naw, that would dispell his pointless point.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
They did quite well even at lex and concord.. you might want to read past chapter 3..
LoL Lex and Concord were Basically the same engagement... And their were minutemen involved as well. The militia itself is worthless.
In the majority of their battles 75% they fled. That is not the sign of a good defensive or offensive army. You need to read back over chapter 3.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Who do you think made up the initial cadre of the Contintental Army?
The Continental Army was no powerhouse either. GW lost/tied 7 of 10 battles. And his 3 victories were little more than raids. GW's strategy was to AVOID major battles because he knew keeping the Army Alive was the only way the revolution would continue. And that in a toe to toe engagement with the British he would get spanked.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He might also want to check out some former militia officers that were in the Continental Army.
Yeah you might. Considering Militia officers were the most worthless of All. They were frequently not interested in military affairs and only held positions in the militia for social interests/standing. I will concede there were a few good men but for the majority the Militia was a bunch of worthless men who would run at the first sign of a real fight. Not to mention mutiny.
-
George Washington, Virginia Militia
You need to do a bit more study.
-
raider... A nation of riflemen is not the militia as such. In the revolutionary war the milita "fled" I woulda fled too... they were much better at firing from cover and retreating than standing in a line and taking a volley... many british troops considered them total cowards because they would fire from great distance from behind cover and then flee... when the british had to flee the militia sniped at them from cover..
This was all considered very unsportsmanlike... It has been said that if the militia stood they would have been slaughtered... even their rifles were meant for slow deliberate fire rather than the hogged out british smoothbores that could be loaded even when fouled with many shots.
but... back to a nation of riflemen.... you being on the "rifle team" must know that the more you shoot the better you get.. Alvin York did not learn to shoot in the army.
In the civil war the confederates with their higher rifleman skills (and love of firearms) killed the union soldiers (loafer wearing taxi riders) by a margin of allmost two to one...
The swiss are all excellent riflemen... not because they watch westerns on tv or because they had a few hours practice in the ROTC... but because they love shooting and have military rifles and machine guns in their homes and are required to remain proficient... they have huge shooting festivals and guns are a common sight.
I just got back from the range and cleaning my guns... Their I met a WWII vet and his college age grandson (really good kid) I let the kid shoot my M1 and my 44 mag.. he loved it and was respectful and polite and an extremely good shot. In fact... everyone at the range today was cheerful and friendly... lots of laughing and helping each other out.... some were sighting in huinting rifles but most.... were just out having a really good time... nothing evil about it. everyone was armed... there were no police and no government to make us behave... we all got along just fine and no one shot anyone else.
The kid was saying that his brother lived in Wa. and had a concealled carry permit and how easy it was to get... he simply could not understand why we couldn't all have one.
guns, hot rods and home schooling (or vouchers) there are those that fear anyone who is an individual enough to cherish these things. (paraphrase from Jeff Cooper)
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
George Washington, Virginia Militia
You need to do a bit more study.
Are you gonna tell me GW was a good general? lmao Like I said he lost more battles than he won. And the ones he won were smaller raids not full on engagements where he got his arse handed to him like in NY.
-
Washington won the battles he had to. He managed to keep the army together under the most adverse conditions. I believe that he was pretty glad that most of his army and the militia allready knew how to shoot since he didn't get a lot of time and money to do it.
but ok.... we get it... you think guns are evil. You might allow some of us to have hunting rifles tho..... for now.
lazs
-
I find it rather funny that after having lost multiple gun arguments, Raider has resorted to attacking the militia idea.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider... A nation of riflemen is not the militia as such. In the revolutionary war the milita "fled" I woulda fled too... they were much better at firing from cover and retreating than standing in a line and taking a volley... many british troops considered them total cowards because they would fire from great distance from behind cover and then flee... when the british had to flee the militia sniped at them from cover..
This was all considered very unsportsmanlike... It has been said that if the militia stood they would have been slaughtered... even their rifles were meant for slow deliberate fire rather than the hogged out british smoothbores that could be loaded even when fouled with many shots.
but... back to a nation of riflemen.... you being on the "rifle team" must know that the more you shoot the better you get.. Alvin York did not learn to shoot in the army.
In the civil war the confederates with their higher rifleman skills (and love of firearms) killed the union soldiers (loafer wearing taxi riders) by a margin of allmost two to one...
The swiss are all excellent riflemen... not because they watch westerns on tv or because they had a few hours practice in the ROTC... but because they love shooting and have military rifles and machine guns in their homes and are required to remain proficient... they have huge shooting festivals and guns are a common sight.
I just got back from the range and cleaning my guns... Their I met a WWII vet and his college age grandson (really good kid) I let the kid shoot my M1 and my 44 mag.. he loved it and was respectful and polite and an extremely good shot. In fact... everyone at the range today was cheerful and friendly... lots of laughing and helping each other out.... some were sighting in huinting rifles but most.... were just out having a really good time... nothing evil about it. everyone was armed... there were no police and no government to make us behave... we all got along just fine and no one shot anyone else.
The kid was saying that his brother lived in Wa. and had a concealled carry permit and how easy it was to get... he simply could not understand why we couldn't all have one.
guns, hot rods and home schooling (or vouchers) there are those that fear anyone who is an individual enough to cherish these things. (paraphrase from Jeff Cooper)
lazs
I agree with the first part of what you say about militia.
Then you jump ahead to the Civil war and that is not the same thing. You said Founding Fathers and I called you on it. The founding fathers knew what a mess the Militia was and you yourself just said "In the revolutionary war the milita "fled" I woulda fled too" Thats all the proof I need to show the militia was not as you put it "I feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom..."
By founding fathers you do mean the ones at the time of the Revolutionary war right? I am not aware of any others :)
Again Civil War is not founding fathers. Now do you mean during the Civil war or the Revolutionary war?
By human nature the more often you do something the more proficient you become. It's not their "love" of guns that makes them good. It's practice and training. lol You can love your gun all you want but if you don't take it and go shoot on a regular basis you are gonna suck with it.
I never said a gun range isn't fun. I have had some great times at them. I mowed my yard today, no one got shot out there either. lol :lol
I don't agree about vouchers either but we can save that for another day.
-
At the time, the British Army was THE pre-eminent land military force on the planet.
Washington, all things considered, did an absolutely amazing job.
Like I said, I think you need to do more study. Whether you like it or not, there would have been NO successful American Revolution without the militias and their officers.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Washington won the battles he had to. He managed to keep the army together under the most adverse conditions. I believe that he was pretty glad that most of his army and the militia allready knew how to shoot since he didn't get a lot of time and money to do it.
but ok.... we get it... you think guns are evil. You might allow some of us to have hunting rifles tho..... for now.
lazs
Ummm no he didn't. He just barely managed to keep his army alive long enough for the french to come to our rescue.
It's not guns are evil, its people who are ignorant enough to believe that a militia is a good defense. They are worthless when it comes to defense/offense.
Yeah your right, I don't want all the guns though, just yours. :rofl
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I find it rather funny that after having lost multiple gun arguments, Raider has resorted to attacking the militia idea.
hey whatever happened to gettin shown in the other thread???
You didn't do anything but run and hide and now your back for a few more one-liners with absolutely nothing to say that matters.
Welcome back. At least the rest of us can offer information on the subject at hand. Must suck to be sitting there wondering what everyone else is discussing.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
LoL Lex and Concord were Basically the same engagement... And their were minutemen involved as well. The militia itself is worthless.
In the majority of their battles 75% they fled. That is not the sign of a good defensive or offensive army. You need to read back over chapter 3.
I did not say they were different occasions so your jab there remains pointless.
they inflicted a 10 to 1 causualty ratio on the british troops during the course of the fight. Not quite worthless.
BTW, what is your point to this hijack anyways? Are you trying to negate the 2nd by spewing some dubious and irrelevent semi-factoids?
-
Originally posted by Toad
At the time, the British Army was THE pre-eminent land military force on the planet.
Washington, all things considered, did an absolutely amazing job.
Like I said, I think you need to do more study. Whether you like it or not, there would have been NO successful American Revolution without the militias and their officers.
Hardly, The only importance I really see that the militia played was to keep the general populace thinking they were doing there part. Most militiamen didn't want to be there, hence the frequent desertion and mutinies and fleeing from the field of battle.
You want to talk success, we would not have been successful without the French. The militia could have taken a backseat and it would not have seriously hurt the war effort. That is not to say they didn't help, I just don't place this as "the most important" part of our defense unlike others seem to think is this thread.
-
Germans. It was the germans who helped us. The french did nothing.
Well, nothing except for give us a german to teach us.
-
of course yu don't agree about vouchers and probly despise home schooling... I doubt that there are many things we agree on at all.
back to the militia... if you agree with the first part of what I said... then you should probly first understand it. I did not say that a standing army was not needed only that the militia killed british troops in an (for then) uncomventional manner.. I said that they fled not that they were useless... I said that they were considered to be cowards by the regular british troops (the losers)... they killed more british soldiers than the brits killed of them... I say that under the circumstances I would have fled too. I meant it... it was the smart thing to do and the right use of resources..
they didn't allways flee tho... I forget the battle some of you probly know... Washington asked them (the militia) to stand their ground for two shots... he impressed on them that it would actually be a good thing and was necessary... they believed him and stood their ground... for two volleys... by then most of em couldn't jam a bullet down the fouled barrel without first cleaning it but... they stood their ground and the battle was won.
the brits were wrong... standing upright and taking volleys and having a professional army of lousy shots (yep they were lousy shots) lousy because they had lousy (inaccurate) rifles and lousy cause they didn't train as riflemen but more as volley throwers..
the miiltia felt that if you could kill a redcoat from a distance and cover and then run away.... you could kill another one some other time. I find no flaw in this way of thinking given the resources of the militia.
fast forward to the civil war and every war since... just like the militia... the soldiers that came from the gun culture were crack shots... they may still need to be trained as soldiers but they didn't need to be trained to shoot. The nation of riflemen idea has allways produced competent foot soldiers who hit what they aim at.
You admit that rifle skills take many hours (most would say years and thousands of rounds) yet... most armies have very little time or inclination to train competent shots... The citizen of the gun culture is still valuable..
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I did not say they were different occasions so your jab there remains pointless.
they inflicted a 10 to 1 causualty ratio on the british troops during the course of the fight. Not quite worthless.
BTW, what is your point to this hijack anyways? Are you trying to negate the 2nd by spewing some dubious and irrelevent semi-factoids?
Dont forget the battle of Bunker hill that occurred afterwards in which That Militia got kicked out of Boston. I will admit it was a pyrhic victory for the Brits but Militia was unable to hold them off.
So you have 1 victory that was quickly beaten back. Can't really call it a victory if you can't hold on to it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Germans. It was the germans who helped us. The french did nothing.
Well, nothing except for give us a german to teach us.
Please step away from the computer and go pick up a book.
The Hessians were British Mercenaries. The french helped us big time.
-
Again they inflicted massive casualties on the British and helped dispell the mith of British superiority. There is more than one way to win and the militia was a major part of it whether you like it or not.
The facts remain that the colonies won their independence. You can try to demean that all you want but history is not something that can be changed except of course if its a matter of your own mind. You have a minor point on milita members not standing to fight the British toe to toe but they won in the end and thats what matters.
Again, whats your point?
The hessians were german mercenaries.
-
"Ummm no he didn't. He just barely managed to keep his army alive long enough for the french to come to our rescue."
so your arguement is that he managed to win enough to win the war?
I was taught that the french were waiting to see if we had a chance of winning before they would step in.... they had their own problems... They didn't jump in till the war was about won.
Any way you look at it.... a nation of riflemen defeated the greatest standing army the world had ever seen.... or, at least the portion of it that fought us.
By the time the french came... the brits barely had a toehold in the colonies. They had lost a most of the land they occupied and a lot of their army. Defeats were more common for them not less toward the end.
But... like I said... I can't believe that there is anything about America that you and I would agree on... the South successfully seceeded from the union because of differences that could not be reconciled... perhaps there is no point in us trying to get along.. It might be time for the U.S. to split into a couple of nations.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
of course yu don't agree about vouchers and probly despise home schooling... I doubt that there are many things we agree on at all.
back to the militia... if you agree with the first part of what I said... then you should probly first understand it. I did not say that a standing army was not needed only that the militia killed british troops in an (for then) uncomventional manner.. I said that they fled not that they were useless... I said that they were considered to be cowards by the regular british troops (the losers)... they killed more british soldiers than the brits killed of them... I say that under the circumstances I would have fled too. I meant it... it was the smart thing to do and the right use of resources..
they didn't allways flee tho... I forget the battle some of you probly know... Washington asked them (the militia) to stand their ground for two shots... he impressed on them that it would actually be a good thing and was necessary... they believed him and stood their ground... for two volleys... by then most of em couldn't jam a bullet down the fouled barrel without first cleaning it but... they stood their ground and the battle was won.
the brits were wrong... standing upright and taking volleys and having a professional army of lousy shots (yep they were lousy shots) lousy because they had lousy (inaccurate) rifles and lousy cause they didn't train as riflemen but more as volley throwers..
the miiltia felt that if you could kill a redcoat from a distance and cover and then run away.... you could kill another one some other time. I find no flaw in this way of thinking given the resources of the militia.
fast forward to the civil war and every war since... just like the militia... the soldiers that came from the gun culture were crack shots... they may still need to be trained as soldiers but they didn't need to be trained to shoot. The nation of riflemen idea has allways produced competent foot soldiers who hit what they aim at.
You admit that rifle skills take many hours (most would say years and thousands of rounds) yet... most armies have very little time or inclination to train competent shots... The citizen of the gun culture is still valuable..
I have no problem with any of that. Like I said your statement on the founding fathers beliefs regarding the Militia are Wrong. And that is why I entered into this. It had nothing to do with the civil war.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Again they inflicted massive casualties on the British and helped dispell the mith of British superiority. There is more than one way to win and the militia was a major part of it whether you like it or not.
The facts remain that the colonies won their independence. You can try to demean that all you want but history is not something that can be changed except of course if its a matter of your own mind. You have a minor point on milita members not standing to fight the British toe to toe but they won in the end and thats what matters.
Again, whats your point?
The hessians were german mercenaries.
I dont call 200 casulties massive. Maybe you do.
I only entered because lasz was wrong about the founding fathers thinking the Militia was the best defense for this country.
For the Hessians I meant they were employed to be British Mercenaries as although they were from the land that is currently Germany, Germany was not yet a country. They were Hessians not Germans.
-
The idea that miltiamen didn't enlist in and make up a large part of the Continental army is delusional.
On June 14 the Continental Congress essentially “adopted” these 20-odd thousand New England colonial milita forces around Boston and created “the American continental army".
Yeah, they required more training to fight in the "conventional" 18th Century manner... stand in lines and get your bellybutton shot off.... but they fought quite well unconventionally. It's one of the lessons Washington himself learned as a Virginia militia man fighting with the British against the Native Americans.
The evidence is there and you look pretty uninformed in your denials.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Ummm no he didn't. He just barely managed to keep his army alive long enough for the french to come to our rescue."
so your arguement is that he managed to win enough to win the war?
I was taught that the french were waiting to see if we had a chance of winning before they would step in.... they had their own problems... They didn't jump in till the war was about won.
Any way you look at it.... a nation of riflemen defeated the greatest standing army the world had ever seen.... or, at least the portion of it that fought us.
By the time the french came... the brits barely had a toehold in the colonies. They had lost a most of the land they occupied and a lot of their army. Defeats were more common for them not less toward the end.
But... like I said... I can't believe that there is anything about America that you and I would agree on... the South successfully seceeded from the union because of differences that could not be reconciled... perhaps there is no point in us trying to get along.. It might be time for the U.S. to split into a couple of nations.
lazs
He fought a war of attrition that he might not have won if not for french help.
French entered openely after yorktown. Prior to that they were supplying us with war materials.
Take a guess why the Brits couldnt put all their forces into North America to defeat us....say it with me, they were over-extended because they were fighting all over the world. Thanks mainly to France. We had no navy to speak of and no way to stretch out the Brits military. The French were indispensible in helping with that.
The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them and were forced back into the union. A victory that is temporary is really not much of a victory at all.
Like I said the only reason I got in here is because of you and the founding father remark. Care to adress that?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them and were forced back into the union. A victory that is temporary is really not much of a victory at all.
Yah, that danged Southern militia didn't know how to fight at all.
Combat Casualties
Civil War:
Union KIA 110,070
Confederate KIA 74,524
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I dont call 200 casulties massive. Maybe you do.
I only entered because lasz was wrong about the founding fathers thinking the Militia was the best defense for this country.
For the Hessians I meant they were employed to be British Mercenaries as although they were from the land that is currently Germany, Germany was not yet a country. They were Hessians not Germans.
I don't mean to disturb your positon with facts but here you go:
"The British took possession of both Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill. They had won the battle, but at a terrible cost: out of 2,200 troops, 268 British soldiers and officers had been killed; another 828 were wounded."
50% casualties is pretty massive to me.
-
Consider this analogy:
Continental Army = NVA
Militia = Viet Cong
-
Originally posted by Toad
The idea that miltiamen didn't enlist in and make up a large part of the Continental army is delusional.
On June 14 the Continental Congress essentially “adopted” these 20-odd thousand New England colonial milita forces around Boston and created “the American continental army".
Yeah, they required more training to fight in the "conventional" 18th Century manner... stand in lines and get your bellybutton shot off.... but they fought quite well unconventionally. It's one of the lessons Washington himself learned as a Virginia militia man fighting with the British against the Native Americans.
The evidence is there and you look pretty uninformed in your denials.
LOL please quote me where I said "NO miltia were in the Continental army" You didnt because I didnt say it. Nice try strawman.
I am talking militia units, which I maintain were next to worthless, Not Continental Army units. You do know the difference correct???
I have already said that CA did recruit out of the Militia. The CA was no formidable force by any means.
As for the New England Militia Here is what GW said about them
"New Englanders strike me as exceedingly dirty and nasty people characterized by an unaccountable kind of stupidity and lack of discipline"
Hey since your history is so good, why don't you tell me what happened to that 20,000 strong militia? I already know but maybe you dont.
"While establishing discipline in the existing army, Washington had at the same time to form a new one enlisted directly in the Continental service. Out of conferences with a Congressional committee that visited camp in September 1775 emerged a plan for such an army, composed of 26 regiments of infantry of 728 men each, plus one regiment of riflemen and one of artillery, 20,372 men in all, to be uniformly paid, supplied, and administered by the Continental Congress and enlisted to the end of the year 1776. Except for the short term of enlistment, it was an excellent plan on paper, but Washington soon found he could not carry it out. Both officers and men resisted a reorganization that cut across the lines of the locally organized units in which they were accustomed to serve. The men saw as their first obligation their families and farms at home, and they were reluctant to re-enlist for another year's service. On December10, despite pressures and patriotic appeals, most of the Connecticut men went home and militia from New Hampshire and Massachusetts had to be brought in to fill their places in the line. Others, who had jeered and hooted when the Connecticut men left, also went home when their enlistment expired only three weeks later. On January 1, 1776, when the army became "Continental in every respect," Washington found that he had only slightly more than 8,000 enlistments instead of the 20,000 planned"
8000 instead of 20000. That is a huge difference. Like I said militia couldn't be counted on for anything and the French are more responsible for the creation of this country than the militia are.
-
raider come on.... you know you backed yourself into a corner...the second amendment was put there so that we would allways have a nation of riflemen to draw on and that has allways been a huge plus. The militia had a very large part in defeating the british and harrassing them. We could not have won without the militia.... especially if it was as close as you say (and I agree with you there).
We had no time to train and raise an army nor the money and resources to do so... this you must admit... With so little training... even the regular troops would have been far less effective in a nation that forbade men to keep and bear arms.. that is just the way it was.
Everyone was strained with enemies... the brits the french and the Amercian rebels... so what? by the time the french got involved it was pretty much a done deal. Yes... they did supply arms but... That is allways the case and has nothing to do with the militia issue. The brits were defeated by a largely untrained and under supplied and outnumbered army of patriots... the british lost every battle that counted and spent a lot of effort in countering the militia that would have been used against the American army regulars.
The second amendment recognizes that a nation of riflemen is vital for defense against enemies both foriegn and domestic and it has been probven time and again that it was a sound concept.
The south did indeed suceed from the union and quite successfully... they were forced by strength of arms to return... they were a defeated nation... if not... then why were the generals and soldiers accorded the rights of enemy soldiers and not terrorists? Even Lee (and many otheres) waited till their states declared for the Union or the confederacy before they joined the fight so as not to be considered traitors.
Another succesful secession was that of north and south virginia... ironicaly enough... the south allowed it to go in peace.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, that danged Southern militia didn't know how to fight at all.
Combat Casualties
Civil War:
Union KIA 110,070
Confederate KIA 74,524
Like I said I got into this over a comment on the Founding Fathers, and as far as I know that was during the Revolutionary war not the Civil War.
-
You are too funny.
The entire 20,000 BECAME the Continental Army.
Did some go home when their enlistment was up? Sure. It took years to complete the transition from militia to "regular army".
However, look at your own quote:
On December10, despite pressures and patriotic appeals, most of the Connecticut men went home and militia from New Hampshire and Massachusetts had to be brought in to fill their places in the line.
Here's a quote for you that may help you.. but I sort of doubt it.
From this non-coordinated array of various counties’ and colonies’ amateurish militia companies encircling Boston during the summer of 1775 would develop, within four years, an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.
The process through which this development took place was neither uniformly progressive nor consistently linear. It occurred through a series of army reorganizations created by regimental designations, re-designations and consolidations, which collectively yielded a sequence of phases in the progression of the Continental Army.
Added to the complexity of these several sequential phases of the main army’s development, the entirety of the American military was composed of the Congress’s “continental” army as well as the component states’ military systems.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said I got into this over a comment on the Founding Fathers, and as far as I know that was during the Revolutionary war not the Civil War.
LOL!
Let's see.. who just said:
Originally posted by Raider179
The south didn't do secede from anything. They got their bellybutton handed to them
[/b]
Oh... it was RAIDER179 who said that.
On the field of battle, those guys that "got their bellybutton handed to them" had a much better K/D than the Union troops.
-
oh... and what remark about the founding fathers was I supposed to address?
I allways try to address the issues you bring up (at least till the thread gets locked).
I really think you are grasping at straws here... you seem to be saying that the militia was useless even tho they caused no end of harm to the british by hounding them and inflicting huge casualties and tying up their army. You seem to be saying that if you don't win major battles that your group is pointless. Perhaps I am not understanding you but it sure looks like you are saying that skilled riflemen are of no use to a nation or themselves in a war.
lazs
-
Give it up. We didn`t actualy win guys. We are going to have to sign it all over to the British and have Beetle for our "Supreme King Type Person".
Start destroying those 50s models gas guzzlers before he arrives.
I beleive raider will be appointed Misinformation Officer. :)
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I don't mean to disturb your positon with facts but here you go:
"The British took possession of both Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill. They had won the battle, but at a terrible cost: out of 2,200 troops, 268 British soldiers and officers had been killed; another 828 were wounded."
50% casualties is pretty massive to me.
Ok lets say 50% casulties are massive. Care to put up the US losses or want me to do it for you. Here I will just do it for you...
The Americans had around 450 casulties out of a force between 1100-1400.
So the American rate was 32 - 41% Not exactly a decisive victory since the Americans were forced out of their Positions.
-
toad... I think my point was that regardless of who won... the south did suceed from the union and was recognized as a seperate nation. The fact that the north would not honor their wishes and brought them back by force of arms has nothing to do with it..
the north had all the cards and knew it... otherwise they would have never started the war... and even then... they did so poorly with what they had that it was allmost the worst defeat in history for them. They couldn't buy a win at first... only by outproducing and outnuimbering the south in huge numbers did they even manage to break even in the later battles.
lazs
-
so raider... you consider a militia that inflicts allmost twice as many casualties as they recieve on the greatest army in the world .... an army of not only superior supplies but one of a force that is 1/3 to half again as large...to be..... useless and unnecessary?
I'm missing something here I know but you aren't helping me out..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are too funny.
The entire 20,000 BECAME the Continental Army.
Did some go home when their enlistment was up? Sure. It took years to complete the transition from militia to "regular army".
However, look at your own quote:
Here's a quote for you that may help you.. but I sort of doubt it.
I'm sorry does 8000 = 20,000???
12,000 is not some that is more than half. Like I said problems due to using Militia as if they are regular army. They are not and do not act like them. Troops that need years of training to even become decent is not what I would call a good defense force.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL!
Let's see.. who just said:
Oh... it was RAIDER179 who said that.
On the field of battle, those guys that "got their bellybutton handed to them" had a much better K/D than the Union troops. [/B]
I see you quoted me instead of who brought it up originally. I was just responding.
Are you saying K/D is the only determinate in who wins?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so raider... you consider a militia that inflicts allmost twice as many casualties as they recieve on the greatest army in the world .... an army of not only superior supplies but one of a force that is 1/3 to half again as large...to be..... useless and unnecessary?
I'm missing something here I know but you aren't helping me out..
lazs
Americans had fortifications prepared.... Useless might have been too strong but they were still inept.
Ok I will concede the militia did have a moment or two but in no way would I rely on them for defense or my person or my country.
-
who wins is the determinate of who wins. How they got there is allways interesting tho. It points out strengths and weakneses.
So far... I have seen no weakness but only strength from having a nation of riflemen and the second amendment.
if you felt that the militia did not perform as well as you would have liked.... perhaps you would care to speculate on how well they would have done if they had given up their arms to the british as was demanded of them when this whole little difference of opinon came about?
lazs
-
Here's your problem, simply stated: You are unable to understand the evolution of the Continental Army.
Again:
From this non-coordinated array of various counties’ and colonies’ amateurish militia companies encircling Boston during the summer of 1775 would develop, within four years, an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.
The militia BECAME an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.
At the start they were not an 18th Century professional standing army.
They were a militia that knew how to fight the fights they had to fight, primarily "Indian wars".
If you had been a skilled Indian fighter at the time, you'd have thought it absolute lunacy to stand in a line, take cannon fire and then take volley fire from massed enemy. I wonder how many ran from fear as opposed to how many ran from correctly figuring out that there was a better way to fight.
As the Brits retreated from Lexington and Concord, the militia fought "their fight". They fought as Indian fighters. How'd that turn out for the Brits? How many militia ran then?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I see you quoted me instead of who brought it up originally. I was just responding.
Are you saying K/D is the only determinate in who wins?
Oh, I see. I cannot respond to your responses. Sorry, missed that rule. I'll try to observe it in the future.
Wait...am I responding to one of your responses right now?
No, I'm saying anyone who thinks the force that had a superior K/D in actual combat "had their bellybutton handed to them" uses a far different yardstick than most other historians.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Thats your call and no one here has a problem with that. The question is why do you have a problem with others using other means?
If you are not a felon, and follow the gun laws I don't have a problem. The problem I have with guns is that the criminals have them.
Theres just too much killing in this world. most of it for no reason, note: I said MOST of it.
-
and... I am still not following your arguement... are you now saying that it was all the brits fault for even fighting the militia?
seems the milita fought a very smart war... seems we all benifieted except the brits. the militia won in any way that you care to name. It matters not if you win a major battle if you kill and tie up the enemy until they are defeated.
For what we payed for the militia.... even you would have to admit.... we got a hell of a deal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Ok I will concede the militia did have a moment or two but in no way would I rely on them for defense or my person or my country.
The nascent United States DID rely on them for defense. The militia BECAME the Continental Army.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh... and what remark about the founding fathers was I supposed to address?
I allways try to address the issues you bring up (at least till the thread gets locked).
I really think you are grasping at straws here... you seem to be saying that the militia was useless even tho they caused no end of harm to the british by hounding them and inflicting huge casualties and tying up their army. You seem to be saying that if you don't win major battles that your group is pointless. Perhaps I am not understanding you but it sure looks like you are saying that skilled riflemen are of no use to a nation or themselves in a war.
lazs
This one
neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...
lazs
A quote from George Washington letter to the Continental Congress, September 24, 1776 (founding Father)
"To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows."
Alexander Hamiliton Federalist Papers
"Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would beat all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which from our own experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."
The militia was a terrible fighting force, unable to defend the US from any attack by regular troops or even large forces of Indians. Basically the only reason it survived so long is the fear of a standing army.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who wins is the determinate of who wins. How they got there is allways interesting tho. It points out strengths and weakneses.
So far... I have seen no weakness but only strength from having a nation of riflemen and the second amendment.
if you felt that the militia did not perform as well as you would have liked.... perhaps you would care to speculate on how well they would have done if they had given up their arms to the british as was demanded of them when this whole little difference of opinon came about?
lazs
The militia was a farce then and its an even larger farce now. That is the point.
Unprofessional(non-soldiers) individuals with guns are fine but I by no means expect our country to be protected or defended by them.
Some did join the British, They were called the loyalists .
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here's your problem, simply stated: You are unable to understand the evolution of the Continental Army.
Again:
The militia BECAME an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.
At the start they were not an 18th Century professional standing army.
They were a militia that knew how to fight the fights they had to fight, primarily "Indian wars".
If you had been a skilled Indian fighter at the time, you'd have thought it absolute lunacy to stand in a line, take cannon fire and then take volley fire from massed enemy. I wonder how many ran from fear as opposed to how many ran from correctly figuring out that there was a better way to fight.
As the Brits retreated from Lexington and Concord, the militia fought "their fight". They fought as Indian fighters. How'd that turn out for the Brits? How many militia ran then?
so let me see If I understand you. Militia becomes Continental Army, GW instills discipline, training, military instruction and you still call them a militia?
Once training and discipline occur they cease to be militia and become regulars. Now if someone would have went and done that to the militia instead of just taking them into battle whilly-nilly maybe they would have fought better. As it was they were unreliable and inept.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I see. I cannot respond to your responses. Sorry, missed that rule. I'll try to observe it in the future.
Wait...am I responding to one of your responses right now?
No, I'm saying anyone who thinks the force that had a superior K/D in actual combat "had their bellybutton handed to them" uses a far different yardstick than most other historians.
lol shut up :) I didn't go into that because I am trying to stick to the current topic.
The south was pretty much destroyed during it, But lets look at it anyway.
numbers in thousands I believe
-------------------------------------- KIA ---Casualty
Confederate 1,064.2 Enrolled in military 7.0% 31.5%
Union 2,803.3 Enrolled in military 3.9% 22.6%
Add that up with the South being pretty much leveled and you have a beatdown.
-
See if you understand this:
Without the militia, there would have been no Continental Army.
Further, without the militia's previous organization and training, Washington's (a former Virginia MILITIA officer) task would most likely have been impossible.
As for your disregard of the militia, you only view them through the lens of the standard 18th century army.
The militia were not a regular standing army. Duh.
Could they fight well? Absolutely! They fought "their fight" VERY well.
I'm sure the name Francis Marion rings a bell with you. In September 1775 Marion commanded the capture of British forts in Charleston. He went on to fight "guerilla" style with great success.
Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?
-
well... it will perhaps come as no surprise to you that I am more prone to be a Jeffersonian than a Hamiltonian... (Washington had nothing to do with the declaration of independance)
Jefferson was the man who wrote it...
"the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
It still boils down to the fact that an army drawn from such a people... a nation of riflemen is more effective than an army that is not.
the militia then was not a farce... it was the winner... Washington never did recognize that fact. He didn't want to admit that he couldn't have done it without em and was bitter that he didn't really comand them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The south was pretty much destroyed during it, But lets look at it anyway.
numbers in thousands I believe
-------------------------------------- KIA ---Casualty
Confederate 1,064.2 Enrolled in military 7.0% 31.5%
Union 2,803.3 Enrolled in military 3.9% 22.6%
Add that up with the South being pretty much leveled and you have a beatdown.
The South lost but it surely wasn't because the North had better soldiers. They didn't.
The stats you quote are totals enrolled in the respective armies and KIA as a percentage of that total.
Let's see... the North enrolled 3X as many soldiers as the South, ~ 3 million vs 1 million.
Percentage wise, they suffered fewer KIA. Really? No cheese? That's a DUH.
However, when it came to fighting, a 3X numerical advantage yielded the North about a .68 K/D.
The vastly outnumbered (3 to 1) South, OTOH, managed to put up a K/D of 1.47.
Who got whose bellybutton handed to them in combat?
-
Originally posted by Toad
See if you understand this:
Without the militia, there would have been no Continental Army.
Further, without the militia's previous organization and training, Washington's (a former Virginia MILITIA officer) task would most likely have been impossible.
As for your disregard of the militia, you only view them through the lens of the standard 18th century army.
The militia were not a regular standing army. Duh.
Could they fight well? Absolutely! They fought "their fight" VERY well.
I'm sure the name Francis Marion rings a bell with you. In September 1775 Marion commanded the capture of British forts in Charleston. He went on to fight "guerilla" style with great success.
Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?
I see what you are saying but I am not so sure they couldnt have raised an army without the militia. That seems to be pure speculation. Unless you are saying no army has ever come about unless a Militia was First????
Charleston was re-captured by Brits with the entire rest of the "southern army"
Francis was a good leader.
I am sure you didn't forget Gates at Camden when Cornwallis attacked him, His militiamen threw down their weapons and fled. Leaving his regulars to get decimated.
-
Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?
Simple question, Yes or No is all you need.
-
and Hamilton..
"In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct governments in each can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuosly to arms, without concert, without system, without resources, except in their courage and despair."
Alexander Hamilton (federalist papers)
Hmmm.... it would seem that even Hamilton could find a use.... no... a demand, for a militia. "without system" "without resource" sounds like a bunch of guys with guns to me.
I would say that they not only need ":courage and despair" tho but some damn good battle rifles and the time spent in learning how to use em eh?
does that speak to your question about the founders?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It still boils down to the fact that an army drawn from such a people... a nation of riflemen is more effective than an army that is not.
the militia then was not a farce... it was the winner... Washington never did recognize that fact. He didn't want to admit that he couldn't have done it without em and was bitter that he didn't really comand them.
lazs
You do realize most militiamen were not these "riflemen" you like to call them. For the most part they were poor, foriegners, slaves, criminals, and were made up of people who couldn't afford to buy their way out. It wasnt guys like you who hone their skills that were in it, it was the dredges of society, for the most part.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?
Simple question, Yes or No is all you need.
Yes
-
no raider I suppose I don't understand that.... not if you are saying that these guys had no experiance with the rifles they carried. they were hunters and riflemen. they used their own weapons.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and Hamilton..
"In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct governments in each can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuosly to arms, without concert, without system, without resources, except in their courage and despair."
Alexander Hamilton (federalist papers)
Hmmm.... it would seem that even Hamilton could find a use.... no... a demand, for a militia. "without system" "without resource" sounds like a bunch of guys with guns to me.
I would say that they not only need ":courage and despair" tho but some damn good battle rifles and the time spent in learning how to use em eh?
does that speak to your question about the founders?
lazs
without concert and without system means without them being in a militia right?
my whole point of this is that the Militia was not seen by the founding fathers as anything that could defeat, much less bring down a tyrannical government.
-
perhaps these quotes by the founders...
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no raider I suppose I don't understand that.... not if you are saying that these guys had no experiance with the rifles they carried. they were hunters and riflemen. they used their own weapons.
lazs
I wouldnt say all or most. Congress did actually provide funding for the arming of militia's. Not all used their own weapons.
-
No.... without concert and without system means not being part of an organized army.
and congress couldn't even fund the regular army. you are on thin ice here.
lazs
-
Thought you'd say that. Here's your punishment, a long clip:
Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495)
In truth, Washington never cared much for the militia. His letters in the American Revolution echo those of the French and Indian War: The militia was lazy, it would not obey orders, and it showed scant respect for its officers. His comments were very much like those of British officers, who, based upon their experiences with the Americans in the French and Indian War, felt they could not conduct much of a war against the British.
What was really at issue here was that these officers wished a disciplined, regular army that would engage in an aggressive, even imperial, offensive campaign in traditional formations, rather than a citizen’s force, which cared for little except to defend its own locality from invasion by an outside force.
Almost by accident Washington arrived at his strategy to “protract” the war as a means of eventual victory, a strategy Mao Tse-tung would later also adopt. General Nathaniel Greene put it succinctly: “We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again.” Washington’s aide, young Alexander Hamilton, expressed the strategy most fully: “It may be asked, if, to avoid a general engagement, we give up objects of the first importance, what is to hinder the enemy from carrying every important point, and ruining us? My answer is, that our hopes are not placed in any particular city, or spot of ground, but in preserving a good army, furnished with proper necessities, and waste and defeat the enemy by piecemeal.”
To appreciate the extent to which that apparent stalemate was actually an American victory, we have to examine the war from the standpoint of the British and what definition, if any, they had of what “victory” might consist. Their first assumptions had been that a few American agitators were stirring things up, but the reports of General Thomas Gage gradually made it clear that most of New England was in arms against them. After the swarm of militiamen at Lexington and Concord, and the relatively orthodox battle at Breed’s Hill, Washington brought cannon to Dorchester Heights and the British decided to evacuate Boston.
Apart from some raiding parties from the sea, never after Concord did the British army venture any distance into the New England countryside. Therefore, the British were never anywhere near conquering that “hot-bed” of rebellion that remained for the whole war under the control of the militia.[/b]
On the other hand, as Thomas Paine noted, “It is distressing to see an enemy advancing into a country, but it is the only place in which we can beat them.” It was the American militia coming from all over the countryside that insured the encirclement and eventual surrender of the forces in upstate New York under General Burgoyne.
Late in the war the Hessian forces ventured out of New York City into New Jersey in quest of that perpetual mirage of British fantasies, the large force of Loyalists somewhere out there in the countryside waiting to be liberated. Instead, they came under the virtually unceasing attack of skirmishing American militia and decided it was the better part of valor to retreat to the city.
There was also for a time the British-Hessian enclave at Philadelphia where the Germans admitted that “the Americans are bold, unyielding, and fearless, . . . and we cannot block their resources.” It took more than three thousand British troops to try to protect the wagon trains of supplies traveling the distance of 15 miles from Chester to Philadelphia from the attacks of American militia, and even then many of them did not get through. Again, the British ended by evacuating the city.
The end of the war, of course, came in the South, another area where the myth of Loyalist legions in the interior was repeated. It was in the South during Lord Cornwallis’s long meandering march up and down that the American militia began to come into its own. The Americans won only one battle of any consequence, Cowpens, but they so bled the British by their constant harassment that the exploits of Sumter, Pickens, Morgan, and Marion are prime examples of guerrilla warfare.
Every people’s revolutionary war is ended by the triumph of their regular forces as the struggle nears its successful conclusion, but that is the result and not the cause of victory. People’s war is fundamentally political, and it was the militia that gave the Americans virtually the control of the whole country and that insured the legitimacy of the revolutionary government.
British foraging parties were under constant harassment, and British units seldom went out after dark in less than battalion strength. As John Shy suggests, it was the militia that was the sand in the gears of the British pacification machine.
The regular American army, as well as segments of a rag-tag militia, accepted the surrender at Yorktown. The existence of that army should never be allowed to obscure the large reason for the British defeat which was that they could never control, let alone win over, a population of armed militia that was the foundation of support for the American government.
The British military historian Eric Robson acknowledged: “Restricted to little more than the ground they stood on, the British increasingly found subsistence a matter of considerable difficulty.” That was not the result of Washington’s valiant little army camped at Valley Forge or for so many years across the Hudson from the British in New York City, but rather the American guerrilla militia that from local homes and farms made life in the British Army a living hell. Every small detachment was legitimateprey for the Americans. Historians will never know how many of these small skirmishes there were, but only glimpse them all over the landscape, realizing that they form the real reason for the low British morale and eventual defeat.[/b]
-
Originally posted by lazs2
perhaps these quotes by the founders...
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
lazs
Ok lets wrap this up.
Do you think a militia is necessary to defense of the country/state?
Or do you just think armed citizenry is enough?
Basically I feel militia and armed citizenry are the same although militia is supposed to be trained at least somewhat.
-
or these...
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
lazs
-
or these..
In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
-
Originally posted by Toad
Thought you'd say that. Here's your punishment, a long clip:
Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495)
ouch that hurts :)
Ok the Militia played a bigger role than I gave them credit them for, but they had lots of failures on many levels as well that show why a militia is no good for National Defense.
-
Thanks for the reads guys. If/when I am wrong you are much more likely to be able to convince me when you act and speak as you did in this thread. Thanks for the edumacation. :lol
-
I will wrap it up....
I believe exactly as the founders did that an armed citizenry is absolutely the best safeguard against tyrany from within and without and that the right to keep and bear arms is not only an individual right (the people) but..... a human right.... so important that it was ratified second only to the right to speak freely.
I believe, as everyone who has studied the constitution does, that the militia is nothing more than every able bodied man in Amercia and that keeping and bearing arms makes America stronger and keeps it free.
I do not believe that tyranny anb evil have been outdated... I do not believe that all violent and evil men have dissapeared from the earth.
I also believe as Heinlien does that " an armed society is a polite society" and I think that the swiss might bear this out.
what do you believe?
lazs
-
Can the militia go fight a major war by itself?
No. Nobody expects them to do so; never did. That's not what they were about.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Thanks for the reads guys. If/when I am wrong you are much more likely to be able to convince me when you act and speak as you did in this thread. Thanks for the edumacation. :lol
You're welcome. Any old time.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will wrap it up....
I believe exactly as the founders did that an armed citizenry is absolutely the best safeguard against tyrany from within and without and that the right to keep and bear arms is not only an individual right (the people) but..... a human right.... so important that it was ratified second only to the right to speak freely.
I believe, as everyone who has studied the constitution does, that the militia is nothing more than every able bodied man in Amercia and that keeping and bearing arms makes America stronger and keeps it free.
I do not believe that tyranny anb evil have been outdated... I do not believe that all violent and evil men have dissapeared from the earth.
I also believe as Heinlien does that " an armed society is a polite society" and I think that the swiss might bear this out.
what do you believe?
lazs
I'll be brief.
I have no problem armed citizenry. What type of arms well you know how I feel on that, so we don't have to go into it.
I think any modern use/formation of militia's is dumb. It's just another excuse to stockpile guns. And when something really happens where you could use some militia, such as in NO, Where are they??? All talk and no walk...
Maybe your right, maybe everyone should have a gun. Be interesting to see what society was like. You say the Swiss are Entirely all armed? Maybe I will read up on them next.
Cheers
-
(http://24.18.15.14/bbob.jpg)
I am right and every one else is wrong! Thats is all. Not only that but my point is pointless!!!
-
and... raider... I guess I agree with you on this point...
The militia (every able bodied man) should be "trained to some degree" I think it is criminal that the NRA and CMP have been banned from our schools and that the nation is not sponsoring shooting ranges and safety training (NRA and CMP) and giving away surplus guns and ammo (which we all originaly paid for) or selling them at cost.
klinton had allmost a million servicable and legal to own military surplus firearms destroyed rather than sell them back to the people.
I think that it is common sense to teach our children in the schools firearm safety.... and not...."run away run away".
so yes... we do agree and we do have some small divot of common ground on at least this issue.
lazs
-
Allow me to be the first:
[/quote]The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle (http://The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle)
When you discuss the militia today on the planet earth, some of the strongest case law is embodied by the experience of Switzerland. The Swiss have been at peace longer than any other people on Earth, primarily because virtually every adult male (and any adult female who wants to join the effort) is a member of the militia and issued a real assault rifle.
The rifle the Swiss government issues to its citizens is a true machine gun. Picture a match-accurate M-16 rifle with a target grade trigger and a selector switch that goes from safe to semiautomatic to three-shot burst to full automatic, and you have the Sturmgewehr-90, which may be the most advanced assault rifle on earth. There’s one in almost every Swiss home, yet mass murders in public are unknown in that country. The murder rate in Switzerland is a fraction of that in the lowest-crime states in the US, despite the ubiquitous presence of machine guns and ammunition.
When their time comes to leave the militia, aging members have the option of keeping their rifles. A great many do. The Swiss army, with only a few thousand full time career members, sees the retired militia people who are still armed as one more resource that keeps their country safe from war.
Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper’s nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year’s supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?
It was Invader Motel. “They check in, but they don’t check out.” Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them.
-
Please step away from the computer and go pick up a book.
The Hessians were British Mercenaries. The french helped us big time.
I suggest you go pick up a book. You're embarassing yourself.
Back then Germany wasn't the Germany we know of it today. Hessia was it's own area / country. There were other german countries there too.
I said German because I forget which area Von Steuben was from.
Up to the Battle of Saratoga, we weren't doing too well. France was worried about giving us any help at all. But we ****in spanked the British at Saratoga. Because of this, they gave us von Steuben and nothing else.
I attribute winning the war to von Steuben. Not the french.
The Baron Von Steuben was a German military Genious hired by the French to teach us how to beat the British. von Steuben was such a brilliant mind that he explained exactly which tactics to use to defeat the british. And it worked.
The French, on the other hand, were too Golly-geen worried that we were going to lose. And they didn't want to be part of the losing team. They *****ONLY STEPPED IN WHEN IT WAS CERTAIN WE WOULD WIN*****.
-
If you really want to know what happened, I suggest these two books: The Glorious Cause (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345427580/qid=1126739229/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-0029825-6054314?v=glance&s=books) and Rise to Rebellion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345452062/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-0029825-6054314?v=glance&s=books&st=*) .
It will explain clearly what the french did and how things actually happened. Get back to us in a week when you're done reading Raider.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I suggest you go pick up a book. You're embarassing yourself.
Back then Germany wasn't the Germany we know of it today. Hessia was it's own area / country. There were other german countries there too.
I said German because I forget which area Von Steuben was from.
Up to the Battle of Saratoga, we weren't doing too well. France was worried about giving us any help at all. But we ****in spanked the British at Saratoga. Because of this, they gave us von Steuben and nothing else.
I attribute winning the war to von Steuben. Not the french.
The Baron Von Steuben was a German military Genious hired by the French to teach us how to beat the British. von Steuben was such a brilliant mind that he explained exactly which tactics to use to defeat the british. And it worked.
The French, on the other hand, were too Golly-geen worried that we were going to lose. And they didn't want to be part of the losing team. They *****ONLY STEPPED IN WHEN IT WAS CERTAIN WE WOULD WIN*****.
LOL the Hessian's were in fact British Mercenaries. They were Hessian mercenaries employed by Britian. I used the Correct Term Hessian in identifying them and placed them on the correct side of the battle. Unlike you.
GERMANY was not a country. SO quit calling them Germans. Jeez you are stupid. So like I said go pick up a book. You once again are far too late to enter this.
German Confederation origin 1815.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you really want to know what happened, I suggest these two books: The Glorious Cause (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345427580/qid=1126739229/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-0029825-6054314?v=glance&s=books) and Rise to Rebellion (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345452062/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-0029825-6054314?v=glance&s=books&st=*) .
It will explain clearly what the french did and how things actually happened. Get back to us in a week when you're done reading Raider.
no one is getting back to you or listening to anything you have to say. So save yourself the breath/thought.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Allow me to be the first:
The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle (http://The Rationale of the Automatic Rifle)
When you discuss the militia today on the planet earth, some of the strongest case law is embodied by the experience of Switzerland. The Swiss have been at peace longer than any other people on Earth, primarily because virtually every adult male (and any adult female who wants to join the effort) is a member of the militia and issued a real assault rifle.
The rifle the Swiss government issues to its citizens is a true machine gun. Picture a match-accurate M-16 rifle with a target grade trigger and a selector switch that goes from safe to semiautomatic to three-shot burst to full automatic, and you have the Sturmgewehr-90, which may be the most advanced assault rifle on earth. There’s one in almost every Swiss home, yet mass murders in public are unknown in that country. The murder rate in Switzerland is a fraction of that in the lowest-crime states in the US, despite the ubiquitous presence of machine guns and ammunition.
When their time comes to leave the militia, aging members have the option of keeping their rifles. A great many do. The Swiss army, with only a few thousand full time career members, sees the retired militia people who are still armed as one more resource that keeps their country safe from war.
Barely more than half a century ago, the Nazi war machine considered invading Switzerland. It was the sort of nightmare that would make a field marshal of an army of conquest wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Every home a sniper’s nest? Mountain roads and bridges all mined, ready to be blown up and made impassable within 24 hours of an invasion? A populace unworried about embargo because every home had a year’s supply of food, not to mention a significant supply of ammunition? And why had the German spies reported that every Swiss village had a 300-meter rifle range, busily used by the citizenry every weekend?
It was Invader Motel. “They check in, but they don’t check out.” Why did field marshals who could not dissuade Adolf Hitler from invading Russia in winter manage to convince him that there was no future in attacking tiny Switzerland? Because some things are so obvious that even raving madmen can understand them. [/B]
Well I am least convinved to try it. What we have right now is obviously not working. I hope proper training and education would go along with our version as opposed to just handing out rifles. lol
-
Raider! Go back and read! :furious I even directly said that germany didn't form a country for a while. However, they were germanic tribes ever since the roman times. Where do you think the name "Germany" came from?
And I also never said that Hessians weren't mercanaries for Britain!
I was pointing out that the french practically didn't help us with anything. Though, I guess expecting you to read something is way too difficult. Even if it was only 11 sentences. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Raider! Go back and read! :furious I even directly said that germany didn't form a country for a while. However, they were germanic tribes ever since the roman times. Where do you think the name "Germany" came from?
And I also never said that Hessians weren't mercanaries for Germany!
I was pointing out that the french practically didn't help us with anything. Though, I guess expecting you to read something is way too difficult. Even if it was only 11 sentences. :rolleyes:
even if he does read it it's no use argueing with him. He see's what he want's and makes up his own facts from the land of make beleive.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
I don't mean to disturb your positon with facts but here you go:
"The British took possession of both Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill. They had won the battle, but at a terrible cost: out of 2,200 troops, 268 British soldiers and officers had been killed; another 828 were wounded."
50% casualties is pretty massive to me.
was re-reading some of this and wanted to clarify I was talking about lex. concord
-
'The Swiss have been at peace longer than any other people on Earth, primarily because virtually every adult male (and any adult female who wants to join the effort) is a member of the militia and issued a real assault rifle."
nonsense...theyve been at peace longer than any other people on earth, (since BEFORE assault rifles were invented) because there country, until recently, could be effectivly defended by a 12 year old girl with a pile of rocks.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Raider! Go back and read! :furious I even directly said that germany didn't form a country for a while. However, they were germanic tribes ever since the roman times. Where do you think the name "Germany" came from?
And I also never said that Hessians weren't mercanaries for Germany!
I was pointing out that the french practically didn't help us with anything. Though, I guess expecting you to read something is way too difficult. Even if it was only 11 sentences. :rolleyes:
"Germans. It was the germans who helped us. The french did nothing" Laser
The Germans, Otherwise known as the "Hessians" were not on our side. They were on The British side. They were not on our side. Does that Clear it up for you???
You need to examine the Yorktown battle if you think the French did "nothing".
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
even if he does read it it's no use argueing with him. He see's what he want's and makes up his own facts from the land of make beleive.
Why dont you ask Toad and Lasz if that happened in this thread? I capitulated, but I guess you didn't really read the thread just wanted to come get in because you got owned in the no thread. :lol :lol :lol
-
No, the hessians were not the only german people living in that area!
Just for reference, Hessia is number 7. It was a territory inside the Holy Roman Empire at the time.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Germany_map_states.png)
Courtesy of the Wik. All that other land were other people. Notably, we have Bavaria being number 2, bremen being number 5, and saxony being number 13.
However, these are modern day borders. The Holy Roman Empire stretched over much more land.
Saying that all Germans were called Hessians is kind of like saying all US Americans are called Texans.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, the hessians were not the only german people living in that area!
Just for reference, Hessia is number 7. It was a territory inside the Holy Roman Empire.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Germany_map_states.png)
Courtesy of the Wik. All that other land were other people. Notably, we have Bavaria being number 2, bremen being number 5, and saxony being number 13.
However, these are modern day borders. The Holy Roman Empire stretched over much more land.
And what does anythat have to do with you saying the Germans helped us? The Hessians aka the Germans were our enemies not our allies. Hope that clears it up. Cant make it much easier for you than that.
-
I edited something in on the end for you to help you understand it. I seriously pray for your intelligence that you can figure it out now.
-
Yea but.............did Rod Serling serve with the North or the South?
-
Oh, you learn something everyday. Through reading up on all these things to prove Raider as a handsomehunk, I came across an interesting little tidbit.
It was not the French who got Friedrich von Steuben to teach the americans how to fight. He volunteered for it.
So that makes the french completely worthless (in regards to the American Revolution).
-
as for the swiss.... lately (1997 or so) they have passed more draconian gun regestration at a federal level.... this was "in response" to the shooting of 14 people by an armed man.
Crime has not dropped one bit and.... if a sociopath wanted to kill 14 people again it would be quite easy for him to take the gun out of his closet and do so. the laws did nothing to make anyone "safer"
It is a disturbing trend worldwide that governments use any trajic event to garner more power over their people and as an excuse to take away freedom..
crime was allways low in switzerland... it has not gone down since the laws.
The laws require regestration of all firearms and that sales between individuals be recorded.
Many suspect that regestration is the first step toward confiscation.... certainly it has been in the past.... and.. it is not possible to confiscate what you don't know about. unregestered weapons are the best safeguard against confiscation.
We are all cowards in any case... if one person blew up an airliner with a new undetectable bomb that could be smuggled on board in the anus.... 90% of us would beg for a law that made anal searches part of the plane boarding routine.
lazs