Comments
81 - 100 of 232 Comments Last updated Mar 7, 2013
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the world do Lincoln's motivations have to do with the limitations on freedoms in the Confederacy's Constitution ?
Either the Confederate Constitution violated the theory of State and individual rights, or it didn't.
Sorry to say, the hypocritical affluent and powerful leaders of the Confederacy, who claimed to exalt "States Rights", created a Constitution that restricted States Rights even more than the North.
Human nature is sometimes consistent.
Boring.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NG Krow wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
If the militia's were so inferior to professionals, what other threats were there that some states had to protect themselves against, both before and after the Revolutionary War?

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...It was natural, if not essential, for the leaders of the Revolution to glorify the citizen militia, for they were trying to rally a people without an army to war. Borrowing heavily from Whig ideology,[142] the revolutionaries sought to persuade themselves and the community that an army composed of armed citizens (farmers and tradesmen willing to grab a musket) would prevail over professional soldiers and mercenaries in service to King George.

...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]

Most militiamen were not even good shots.[168] We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America.[169] We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns.[170] When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and [Page 342] fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working.[171] In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."[172]
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>If the militia's were so inferior to professionals, what other threats were there that some states had to protect themselves against, both before and after the Revolutionary War?

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...It was natural, if not essential, for the leaders of the Revolution to glorify the citizen militia, for they were trying to rally a people without an army to war. Borrowing heavily from Whig ideology,[142] the revolutionaries sought to persuade themselves and the community that an army composed of armed citizens (farmers and tradesmen willing to grab a musket) would prevail over professional soldiers and mercenaries in service to King George.

...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]

Most militiamen were not even good shots.[168] We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America.[169] We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns.[170] When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and [Page 342] fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working.[171] In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."[172]
Great post.

I still want to keep my rifles and shotguns, and as all retired LEO's are permitted by federal law to carry concealed pistols, that never a worry, but,
I just think posts like yours show that maybe the same expansive reading of the Second Amendment resulting in more rights to the common man, has to then be used elsewhere for other Amendments, also resulting in more rights for the common man.

Thanks for a great post.
Gosh

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
If the militia's were so inferior to professionals, what other threats were there that some states had to protect themselves against, both before and after the Revolutionary War?
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
The Militia
...It was natural, if not essential, for the leaders of the Revolution to glorify the citizen militia, for they were trying to rally a people without an army to war. Borrowing heavily from Whig ideology,[142] the revolutionaries sought to persuade themselves and the community that an army composed of armed citizens (farmers and tradesmen willing to grab a musket) would prevail over professional soldiers and mercenaries in service to King George.
...It is not hard to see why the states ultimately supported a standing army. The militia were untrained. "Musters were, after all, usually held but once a year; parading, drinking, and partying clearly took priority over target practice; and uniforms evoked far more passion and interest than musket fire," writes Michael A. Bellesiles.[157] The militia were undisciplined. They fired their muskets in camp, sometimes shooting at geese, sometimes to start campfires, sometimes at random for fun.[158] "Seldom a day passes but some persons are shot by their friends," Washington wrote in 1776.[159] Militiamen drank heavily, sometimes even drinking themselves into stupors in the midst of battle.[160] Worst of all, militia deserted in droves....When positioning their forces for battle, American commanders learned to not only place militia units between regular troops, but to station Continental soldiers behind the militia with orders to shoot the first militiamen to run.[167]
Most militiamen were not even good shots.[168] We think of men as having grown up with guns in colonial America.[169] We assume they were sharpshooters by necessity. Did not men have to become proficient with muskets to protect themselves from ruffians and Indians or to hunt to put food on the table? Contrary to myth, the answer, in the main, is no. In reality, few Americans owned guns.[170] When Michael A. Bellesiles reviewed more than a thousand probate records from frontier areas of northern New England and western Pennsylvania for the years 1765 to 1790, he found that although the records were so detailed that they listed items as small as broken cups, only fourteen percent of the household inventories included firearms and [Page 342] fifty-three percent of those guns were listed as not working.[171] In addition, few Americans hunted. Bellesiles writes: "From the time of the earliest colonial settlements, frontier families had relied on Indians or professional hunters for wild game, and the colonial assemblies regulated all forms of hunting, as did Britain's Parliament."[172]

Obama and his Hitler youth Corps.

http://occupycorporatism.com/obama-and-fema-c...

In 2009, President Obama said that:“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gosh wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama and his Hitler youth Corps.
http://occupycorporatism.com/obama-and-fema-c...
In 2009, President Obama said that:“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Better watch out,
a black man is building a private army.

Thank you for playing,
come back soon.

http://factcheck.org/2010/04/obamas-private-a...
...A July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs by then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. Obama talked there about building up "a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military force. But the doomsayers left out the context: Obama was proposing strengthening the Peace Corps, Americorps, the USA Freedom Corps and the ranks of the State Department’s foreign service officers.

Despite our efforts, though, some people have been on the lookout for signs of Obama’s "national security force" ever since, and they think they have found it in section 5210 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care overhaul recently signed into law by the president. The blogosphere has been ablaze with postings, which, like the e-mail above, often contain references to Hitler, brownshirts, Nazism and the like.
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the world do Lincoln's motivations have to do with the limitations on freedoms in the Confederacy's Constitution ?
Either the Confederate Constitution violated the theory of State and individual rights, or it didn't.
Sorry to say, the hypocritical affluent and powerful leaders of the Confederacy, who claimed to exalt "States Rights", created a Constitution that restricted States Rights even more than the North.
Human nature is sometimes consistent.
Just pointing out to you the double standards of you liberals. You babble on endlessly about what you think was wrong about the Confederacy, but when facts are pointed out to you about the high and might Union you can't take it. Personally I'd rather debate with a tree stump than a liberal anyday. The tree stump makes more sense!
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post.
I still want to keep my rifles and shotguns, and as all retired LEO's are permitted by federal law to carry concealed pistols, that never a worry, but,
I just think posts like yours show that maybe the same expansive reading of the Second Amendment resulting in more rights to the common man, has to then be used elsewhere for other Amendments, also resulting in more rights for the common man.
Thanks for a great post.
Why do you feel that a retired LEO should have a special privilige to carry a gun? Is he any different than an ordinary law abiding citizen? NO. That is why we have a second amendment. I am a 2 war combat veteran but I don't feel I should be categorized as special to be able to carry a gun. That right is guaranteed to me under the Constitution, but you and your liberal friends don't think that way!
NG Krow

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sandyhook father - "You will take my ability to protect my daughter from my cold dead hands..."

Watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Just pointing out to you the double standards of you liberals. You babble on endlessly about what you think was wrong about the Confederacy, but when facts are pointed out to you about the high and might Union you can't take it. Personally I'd rather debate with a tree stump than a liberal anyday. The tree stump makes more sense!
You are so funny, the point that you keep ignoring is that it doesn't matter what the Union did, the issue is what the Confederacy did.

Why does it NOT matter what the Union did?

Because the Confederacy left the Union and formed their own country, then proceeded to curtail individual liberty and state rights at the same level as what they claimed were their reasons for leaving the union.
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Why do you feel that a retired LEO should have a special privilige to carry a gun? Is he any different than an ordinary law abiding citizen? NO. That is why we have a second amendment. I am a 2 war combat veteran but I don't feel I should be categorized as special to be able to carry a gun. That right is guaranteed to me under the Constitution, but you and your liberal friends don't think that way!
You are confusing a discussion about how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution with support of an interpretation that you do not agree. Some folks can have a discussion about things that they do not agree without needing to show rabid disagreement.

Many ironies come to surface of such a discussion, like the hypocracy of those who believe in original intent - sometimes. Or those that think that the SCOTUS is the final word, until the political winds change and they issue a reversal. Or those that think that the Court sets precedent, until they issue a one-time special no to be copied ruling like the one issued to shoehorn Bush into office in 2000.
Minuteman

Watkinsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so funny, the point that you keep ignoring is that it doesn't matter what the Union did, the issue is what the Confederacy did.
Why does it NOT matter what the Union did?
Because the Confederacy left the Union and formed their own country, then proceeded to curtail individual liberty and state rights at the same level as what they claimed were their reasons for leaving the union.
Thank You for proving my point exactly! Libbies only have their point of view about a subject and no one else counts. This is precisely what I was referring to! Thanks again.
Hooah

Atlanta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>Just pointing out to you the double standards of you liberals. You babble on endlessly about what you think was wrong about the Confederacy, but when facts are pointed out to you about the high and might Union you can't take it. Personally I'd rather debate with a tree stump than a liberal anyday. The tree stump makes more sense!
LMAO @ Tree stump. You got that right! I prefer talking to a fence post rather than a mindless liberal. At least the fence post serves a purpose! LMAO
NG Krow

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Feb 4, 2013
 
From the description in the youtube link below
" Published on Jan 25, 2013

**Jeff Christopher, is the Sheriff of Sussex County, DE**. He is also a board member of CSPOA (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association). He is the ONLY Sheriff in the history of America that has had his State Legislature (DE) pass a House Bill (HB325) that says the Sheriff is NOT a law enforcement officer. This bill is unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the US Constitution and the DE Constitution. Sheriff Christopher has sued the Sussex County Council and the State of DE. We are waiting for the Superior Court Judge to rule according to the Constitution and render in favor of the Sheriff and the Sheriff's powers. If he does not, we are prepared to go to the next step.
~Jeff is paying the price for supporting the 2nd Amendment and now WE need to support him!~
Here are a few links that you should check out:
http://cspoa.org/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Constitutional... ...
https://www.facebook.com/SupportSheriffJeffCh... ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
NG Krow

Dahlonega, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
Feb 4, 2013
 
Constitutional Sheriffs ~ Our Last Line of Defense

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Thank You for proving my point exactly! Libbies only have their point of view about a subject and no one else counts. This is precisely what I was referring to! Thanks again.
You are so funny, it not about a point of view, it a matter of what the Confederacy did upon forming their own country. It doesn't matter one bit what the Union did after the Confederacy was formed, the Union no longer held sway over the internal law making of the Confederacy, they were their own country doin' their own thing.

Sorry, that's not a point of view, just a fact of history.

Your reluctance to discuss the actions for which the Confederacy was responsible is understandable.
DumbLiberals

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so funny, it not about a point of view, it a matter of what the Confederacy did upon forming their own country. It doesn't matter one bit what the Union did after the Confederacy was formed, the Union no longer held sway over the internal law making of the Confederacy, they were their own country doin' their own thing.
Sorry, that's not a point of view, just a fact of history.
Your reluctance to discuss the actions for which the Confederacy was responsible is understandable.
This thread is about the 2nd amendment dummy.


Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Minuteman wrote:
<quoted text>Just pointing out to you the double standards of you liberals. You babble on endlessly about what you think was wrong about the Confederacy, but when facts are pointed out to you about the high and might Union you can't take it. Personally I'd rather debate with a tree stump than a liberal anyday. The tree stump makes more sense!
Nice try, but you display only your own irrationality.

Rather than agree to the obvious facts supporting my post,

you create a fictional "straw man", impute to that poor guy all kinds of prejudice, then attack him viciously for the traits you impute to him.

Let us know if that poor straw guy ever fights back.

Hey, why not accuse him of being gay, on welfare, and carrying numerous unspecified diseases. It's be fun to attack him for those things too.

Watch out though, If the Supremes decide Straw Men, like corporations, are persons, you could be in trouble.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hooah wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO @ Tree stump. You got that right! I prefer talking to a fence post rather than a mindless liberal. At least the fence post serves a purpose! LMAO
In a battle of wits between Right Wing Wackos and fence posts, better bet on the fence posts.

Fence posts are not only smarter, they aren't usually on the government dole.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confusing a discussion about how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution with support of an interpretation that you do not agree. Some folks can have a discussion about things that they do not agree without needing to show rabid disagreement.
Many ironies come to surface of such a discussion, like the hypocracy of those who believe in original intent - sometimes. Or those that think that the SCOTUS is the final word, until the political winds change and they issue a reversal. Or those that think that the Court sets precedent, until they issue a one-time special no to be copied ruling like the one issued to shoehorn Bush into office in 2000.
Great Post

For years we have been hearing from the Right Wing about how bad the "Activist" judges were, especially on the Supreme Court, when they overturned the will of the people as expressed through their state and federal legislatures.

Suddenly we don't hear talk about those bad "Activist" judges on the Supreme Court like Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, who overturn laws, and set aside precedent like nobodies business.

Now "Activist" judges are a good thing.

It's just fun to watch.
Bored

Dawsonville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Great Post
For years we have been hearing from the Right Wing about how bad the "Activist" judges were, especially on the Supreme Court, when they overturned the will of the people as expressed through their state and federal legislatures.
Suddenly we don't hear talk about those bad "Activist" judges on the Supreme Court like Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, who overturn laws, and set aside precedent like nobodies business.
Now "Activist" judges are a good thing.
It's just fun to watch.
Boring.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

29 Users are viewing the Blairsville Forum right now

Search the Blairsville Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 10 min Cbutt 50,014
your opinion on blairsville methadone clinic (Dec '09) 10 hr Logic 148
Union County Development Authority 10 hr PTM 21
4th of July boating accident (Jul '09) 11 hr Worried 23
Would you support/shop @ Starbucks in Blairsville? (Oct '08) Tue Marilyn 37
h7n9 (May '13) Tue ACOG 78
Phone scams are alive and well in Union County Tue Concerned 1
•••
•••

Blairsville News Video

•••
•••

Blairsville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Blairsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Blairsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Blairsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••