Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the 2nd Amendment Really Intended as a Safeguard from Tyranny? (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  poor discipline in the ranks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros

    is not limited to militiamen.  Hell, a lot of British soldiers and mercenaries deserted too.  But hey, if it helps your argument that only militias have ever had discipline problems, pretend away.

    the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

    by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:34:36 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Pretending away? (0+ / 0-)

      But don't let that have you "ignore away" the realities. Why was Washington not voicing the same complaints about the standing army?

      Yes armies always have deserters, but the militia deserted on a greater scale. Ignore that if you want "if it helps your argument."

      •  Washington (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        was consolidating a power base.

      •  you're saying that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros

        the militias who won major battles in the Revolutionary War, sometimes with absolutely no help from the regular army, had worse discipline than any regular army in the history of regular armies?  Seriously?

        Why was Washington not voicing the same complaints about the standing army?
        I haven't read his papers, so I don't know how much he did or didn't complain about regular soldiers.

        I do know that Michael Bellesiles deliberately butchered George Washington quotes to make it sound like discipline problems in a particular militia unit indicated a worthlessness of militias in general, when Washington was really drawing attention to how unusual it was to have a militia unit perform that badly.

        But hopefully you're not as dishonest as some other diarists who have actually cited Bellesiles-based scholarship as though it were a legitimate source.

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:14:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV

          That George Washington didn't have any trust in them. Washington's quotes are hardly unique to one historian.

          Here is the source document I quoted from. Calling this a question of "honesty" is dishonest.

          http://www.loc.gov/...

          •  so Washington says (0+ / 0-)

            -that the militia sucks
            -that the regular troops suck too, but that's the militia's fault, so they don't really suck.
            -that it's somebody else's fault that he fucked up and lost the battle.

            pretending that this proves... what are you trying to prove again?  I forget.

            And Bellesiles is the most dishonest crook in the history of liberal arts, no exaggeration.  

            the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

            by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:27:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site