quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Once the militias had played a key roll in penning the British up in Yorktown,
how did that happen if we needed the French to do anything?

We would have lost Yorktown, which was accomplished by the Army regulars, if the French fleet had not sailed up from Cuba. The French defeated the British relief forces in the Battle of the Chesapeake or Cornwallis would have simply sailed away from the siege. But with French naval guns on one side and a combined French and American army on the other he had no choice but to surrender.

The reason stuff all over the country is named Lafayette and DeKalb is because they were 2 French major generals who led American  forces during the war. Their training of our troops was pivotal in defeating the British.

I repeat, Lexington, Cowpens, Kings Mt., Guilfords court house. Francis Marion
the war in the south could not have been won without the militias.
hey if your right we could have won Viet Nam by sending over a few advisors to train them.
actually it was Von Steuben who provided most of the training.
Till this thread this crappy line of argument was the intellectual property of our English posters
Who couldn't explain why, if we were so outclassed without the French, they beat the French in all
other theaters where they were fighting at the time.

Lexington meant nothing without Concord and Concord was regular troops.
The rest were minor engagements that had no bearing on the outcome of the war.
The war in the south was damn near lost by the militia as I've already pointed out. Just look into the Battle of Camden.
And there is no doubt amongst anyone who has actually studied the history that we only won the war because the French became involved. There were French troops under Rochambeau at Yorktown and the French fleet prevented the British fleet from relieving Cornwallis from the sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Once the militias had played a key roll in penning the British up in Yorktown,
how did that happen if we needed the French to do anything?

We would have lost Yorktown, which was accomplished by the Army regulars, if the French fleet had not sailed up from Cuba. The French defeated the British relief forces in the Battle of the Chesapeake or Cornwallis would have simply sailed away from the siege. But with French naval guns on one side and a combined French and American army on the other he had no choice but to surrender.

The reason stuff all over the country is named Lafayette and DeKalb is because they were 2 French major generals who led American  forces during the war. Their training of our troops was pivotal in defeating the British.

I repeat, Lexington, Cowpens, Kings Mt., Guilfords court house. Francis Marion
the war in the south could not have been won without the militias.
hey if your right we could have won Viet Nam by sending over a few advisors to train them.
actually it was Von Steuben who provided most of the training.
Till this thread this crappy line of argument was the intellectual property of our English posters
Who couldn't explain why, if we were so outclassed without the French, they beat the French in all
other theaters where they were fighting at the time.

Lexington meant nothing without Concord and Concord was regular troops.
The rest were minor engagements that had no bearing on the outcome of the war.
The war in the south was damn near lost by the militia as I've already pointed out. Just look into the Battle of Camden.
And there is no doubt amongst anyone who has actually studied the history that we only won the war because the French became involved. There were French troops under Rochambeau at Yorktown and the French fleet prevented the British fleet from relieving Cornwallis from the sea.

It would be hard for concord to be fought by regulars since we didn't have any then.
If you believe that Cowpens, Kings Mt, and Guiliford's Court House were of no importance to
the war in the south you simply have no understanding of the war.
those battles are why Cornwallis was penned up in Yorktown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

The boards have had the terms "stand your ground", "castle doctrine, and "duty to retreat" bandied about for a while. I noted that many considered the "duty to retreat" as pervasive as the idea that "guns must be registered" appears in Hollywood produced television.

It turns out, upon checking some statistics, that a minority of the states (19) have some version of "duty to retreat" statutes in effect. It terns out that all three concepts have a basis in British Common Law. I ran across a succinct overview or the concepts in British Common Law and thought I'd share the link for comment and flaming.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/20/duty-to-retreat-in-common-law/

My views on this issue are somewhat mixed, philosophically. I can see that the duty to retreat would make sense from a "law and order" standpoint and the principles of what civilized people are supposed to do in a civilized society. We also favor certain principles of justice, fairness, innocent until proven guilty, and the idea that the punishment should fit the crime.

On the other hand, there are those who tend to believe that in our zeal to promote justice and fairness in our civilized society, that we may have gone too far and gotten too soft on crime. There's a perception that criminals believe they can do whatever they want and suffer no real penalty; even prison doesn't seem to be much of a deterrence. Although crime rates have actually come down in recent years, the crime waves of past decades are still relatively fresh in the public memory, along with the knowledge that crime could always go back up at any time. There is a great deal of fear throughout our society - some may be real but some may be manufactured.

It's not surprising that many people in society feel isolated, fear their neighbors and fellow citizens (most of whom also live in fear but "don't want to get involved"), don't really believe that the government can provide any real protection or justice. There may be the belief that they have to go it alone and stand up for themselves in a lawless, dog-eat-dog society where criminals rule the roost. I'm not saying that that's what our society has degenerated to (not yet anyway), but the perception exists nonetheless.

Our history and folklore often deals with times and places when people lived in semi-isolated circumstances where "law" and "justice" were too far away to be of any use to people (such as in the Old West). While it has become fictionalized and puffed up to some degree, the whole general idea of a gunfighter "doing what he has to do to save the townfolk" has become a very strong element in our ways of looking at the world and life in general.

Trouble is, it's not all that easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. In those old Westerns, it was pretty easy to tell. The Cartrights, the Rifleman, John Wayne - all good guys. Any of their nemeses were bad guys. But in real life, it's not all that easy to figure out who the good guys and bad guys. Sometimes, they all look like bad guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"Cornwallis was in Yorktown because his superior had ordered him to go there. Clinton thought Washington and the French were about to attack him in New York and he ordered Cornwallis to fortify a deep water port. Cornwallis initially went to Portsmouth but decided it was inadequate and embarked his force and landed again in Yorktown which he then fortified. The fighting in South Carolina had nothing to do with it. Realistically Cornwallis had brushed back the army led by Greene, which was mostly the militia troops you are so enamored of, and spent quite a while campaigning and raiding across Virginia. It was only once he was engaged against Lafayette, Washington and Rochambeau with their trained regulars did he face defeat.

"

your failure to understand the war in the south indicates that you lack the tactical acumen to
comprehend what was going on.
Cornwallis's orders to link up with Clinton was an admission that his primary mission
had failed.
Kings Mt proves that despite the public distain the English professed they felt toward militias to they
needed tory irregulars, that is what Ferguson commanded at Kings Mt.
Cornwallis failed to subdue the south because the militias destroyed his supply lines and made
foraging dangerous, almost suicidal.
this was accomplished by militias USING THEIR PRIVATLY OWNED FIREARMS.
Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Read the Federalist papers, particularly number 46 and you will see that you are wrong.
And you have admitted that you do not depend on history or legal precedence but on your
wisdom which means you will insist upon it being what ever you want it to be regardless
of the facts

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I think that the 2nd recognizes your right to choose whether owning a firearm is right for you
It in no way requires you to own one.
Although I may well have just reworded what you said.

My point was simply to reinforce that you don't need to own a gun or think gun ownership is wise in order to support the 2nd amendment.

Back to the castle doctrine, I think that it's pretty simple. Us humans are the most vicious and deadly predators on the face of the planet. So yeah, when you wander into our cave/burrow/home you run some extreme risks -- just as if you'd wandered into a mountain lion den but about a million times worse (literally). In the end, uninvited presence in someone's home is a dangerous proposition and sometimes accidents are going to occur. The other choice... of declaring that a person may not defend themselves in their own home is ludicrous to me.

Gun ownership seems orthogonal to the question.

An as seen over the years, nothing is every short and simple. Someone enters another's home by invitation. Due to some argument or demand, the invited are told to leave. Before the invited could do such, they are killed by the home owner. Since we only have the home owner's word for it, what does society do? Take the person at 100% of their word of honor to tell the truth? Or haul them in to a court and let society decide in a court of law?

Laws try to handle the 'majority' of possible cases. But there is no way one could write a law to handle *ALL* possible cases. That is why we have a court system. That is why the accused is afforded so many protections, right to a lawyer and considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in the court.

And now your "wisdom" puts a homeowner and an intruder on the same legal footing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Even if your fanciful derailment were related to what actually happened it does not
change the fact that the 2nd was, by the writings of the people who wrote it, was always intended
to be an INDIVIDUAL right. The fear of the opposition was not the it would be taken as such
but that people like you would find a way to twist it into something else.
Your derailment also has zero bearing on the primary subject of the thread, a fictional
duty to retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"Cornwallis was in Yorktown because his superior had ordered him to go there. Clinton thought Washington and the French were about to attack him in New York and he ordered Cornwallis to fortify a deep water port. Cornwallis initially went to Portsmouth but decided it was inadequate and embarked his force and landed again in Yorktown which he then fortified. The fighting in South Carolina had nothing to do with it. Realistically Cornwallis had brushed back the army led by Greene, which was mostly the militia troops you are so enamored of, and spent quite a while campaigning and raiding across Virginia. It was only once he was engaged against Lafayette, Washington and Rochambeau with their trained regulars did he face defeat.

"

your failure to understand the war in the south indicates that you lack the tactical acumen to
comprehend what was going on.
Cornwallis's orders to link up with Clinton was an admission that his primary mission
had failed.
Kings Mt proves that despite the public distain the English professed they felt toward militias to they
needed tory irregulars, that is what Ferguson commanded at Kings Mt.
Cornwallis failed to subdue the south because the militias destroyed his supply lines and made
foraging dangerous, almost suicidal.
this was accomplished by militias USING THEIR PRIVATLY OWNED FIREARMS.
Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.

He wasn't ordered to link up with Clinton. Do me a favor stop now and go and actually study the war. Clinton was in New York. Yorktown is in central Virginia. Cornwallis had already sent some troops to Clinton and Clinton had recalled the troops under Arnold but Cornwallis wasn't going anywhere. He was investing in a deep water port so he could be reinforced from the sea. It was strictly because the French won the Battle of the Chesapeake keeping the British fleet away that the siege succeeded.

This fantasy that a couple of minor skirmishes in South Carolina led to Yorktown is based on nothing historical. Cornwallis defeated Greene and moved into Virginia where he skirmished with Lafayette and raided throughout the spring and summer of 1781 with the last major action in the Carolinas being on March 15. Hardly a direct road to the surrender in October.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Read the Federalist papers, particularly number 46 and you will see that you are wrong.
And you have admitted that you do not depend on history or legal precedence but on your
wisdom which means you will insist upon it being what ever you want it to be regardless
of the facts

Show me where in the federalist papers, that the founding fathers had a ful understanding of a musket that could fire 30 musket balls in 2.3 seconds, pretty accurately at 100 yards (or single shot at over 500), tear through wood and stone, let alone human flesh, and rearm not just under 10 seconds but half that time. How good was the knowledge base of those men of the 18th century of 21st century weapons of war? How many semi-automatic pistols did they have that were easily concealable on one's person, very numerous, and easy to come by, back in the 18th century?

That you hide behind federalist paper #46 is rather laughable and all to easily predicted. You really have no clue of a defense to what I suggested above. What I showed above, is pretty true of the individual states back in the 18th century. I live down the street from North Bridge in Concord, MA. Many of the renactors do take time to study on the people they are portraying. Their views on America were very different from ours today. Only a fool would believe nothing really has changed in America from its start to 2014. The federalist papers hold a wealth of information. However, one has to remember that is the works and thoughts of that era. They had a fraction of knowledge to what mankind knows in 2014. Is there some good thoughts and ideas? Of course there are! But should we worship it like the Holy Bible to Christians? Stating it can not be wrong, because it came from the writings of 'oh holy Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay'? Say 'yes' and show all of us how little you understand the founding father's views. They figured that future generations of Americans would known better than they themselves, on how best to run the nation. An that those Americans would understand that the US Government could become tyrannical. Yet, how many of them (i.e. 'founding fathers' or 'modern US Citizens') would seriously consider international corporations behaving in a tyrannical manner on US Citizens? or the top, very wealthy individuals behaving in a tyrannical way? Or of organizations that link together to become dangerous and tyrannical? Or any combination of the three?

So lets jump into the papers....

9th paragraph....

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms"

Which of the states in the country could fully oppose the US Military? Texas? Florida? North Dakota? How about several states? Yeah, that was disproved back in the 1860's. You would need more than 70% of the nation's population to oppose the US Military (even if most of them sided with the states). Since one nuclear warhead is very good at eliminating vast sections of the country side and make it unlivable for about 10,000 years. The founding fathers would have had NO CLUE what a nuclear weapon is fully capable of unleashing. Or even a biological WMD (i.e. Operation: Dark Winter).

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

How many of those people are fully vaccinated against Anthrax? How well does your gun protect you from that evil thing? Answer: It doesn't! How many other evil bugs do you think the CDC knows about, but due to national security, doesn't make it public? An its not a conspiracy theorist question either. I'll take it as a safe bet, they know of stuff that is truly worst that what is known now; the stuff we wish we could unlearn as mankind.

The 9th paragraph is about a country in revolt against the US Government (assuming it was behaving tyrannical). It does not say anything of the individual having a firearm outside of "A well regulated militia....". If anything, it supports the notion that the 2nd amendment refers to organizations with firearms, not the individuals themselves. Why do you think I suggest an amendment directly for individual firearm ownership? I figured you might jump at such an idea. A moment to craft something that helps the individual in good standing with the community (i.e. not a criminal) to have one or more arms for the direct purpose of self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

The only argument against the 2nd Amendment that is honest and non-preposterous is to argue in favor of repealing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Even if your fanciful derailment were related to what actually happened it does not
change the fact that the 2nd was, by the writings of the people who wrote it, was always intended
to be an INDIVIDUAL right. The fear of the opposition was not the it would be taken as such
but that people like you would find a way to twist it into something else.
Your derailment also has zero bearing on the primary subject of the thread, a fictional
duty to retreat.

Really? It was always intended to be an individual right? Prove it.

If anyone here has twisted the 2nd amendment, it would be YOU. Hell you cant even rattle off the first dozen words of the 2nd amendment, and then explain what that means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"Cornwallis was in Yorktown because his superior had ordered him to go there. Clinton thought Washington and the French were about to attack him in New York and he ordered Cornwallis to fortify a deep water port. Cornwallis initially went to Portsmouth but decided it was inadequate and embarked his force and landed again in Yorktown which he then fortified. The fighting in South Carolina had nothing to do with it. Realistically Cornwallis had brushed back the army led by Greene, which was mostly the militia troops you are so enamored of, and spent quite a while campaigning and raiding across Virginia. It was only once he was engaged against Lafayette, Washington and Rochambeau with their trained regulars did he face defeat.

"

your failure to understand the war in the south indicates that you lack the tactical acumen to
comprehend what was going on.
Cornwallis's orders to link up with Clinton was an admission that his primary mission
had failed.
Kings Mt proves that despite the public distain the English professed they felt toward militias to they
needed tory irregulars, that is what Ferguson commanded at Kings Mt.
Cornwallis failed to subdue the south because the militias destroyed his supply lines and made
foraging dangerous, almost suicidal.
this was accomplished by militias USING THEIR PRIVATLY OWNED FIREARMS.
Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.

He wasn't ordered to link up with Clinton. Do me a favor stop now and go and actually study the war. Clinton was in New York. Yorktown is in central Virginia. Cornwallis had already sent some troops to Clinton and Clinton had recalled the troops under Arnold but Cornwallis wasn't going anywhere. He was investing in a deep water port so he could be reinforced from the sea. It was strictly because the French won the Battle of the Chesapeake keeping the British fleet away that the siege succeeded.

This fantasy that a couple of minor skirmishes in South Carolina led to Yorktown is based on nothing historical. Cornwallis defeated Greene and moved into Virginia where he skirmished with Lafayette and raided throughout the spring and summer of 1781 with the last major action in the Carolinas being on March 15. Hardly a direct road to the surrender in October.

You are the one who needs to do more research, Clinton was supposed to leave New York and meet
Cornwallis but was held there by the Americans with no help from the French.
Every time you post you make your miscomprehension clearer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"Cornwallis was in Yorktown because his superior had ordered him to go there. Clinton thought Washington and the French were about to attack him in New York and he ordered Cornwallis to fortify a deep water port. Cornwallis initially went to Portsmouth but decided it was inadequate and embarked his force and landed again in Yorktown which he then fortified. The fighting in South Carolina had nothing to do with it. Realistically Cornwallis had brushed back the army led by Greene, which was mostly the militia troops you are so enamored of, and spent quite a while campaigning and raiding across Virginia. It was only once he was engaged against Lafayette, Washington and Rochambeau with their trained regulars did he face defeat.

"

your failure to understand the war in the south indicates that you lack the tactical acumen to
comprehend what was going on.
Cornwallis's orders to link up with Clinton was an admission that his primary mission
had failed.
Kings Mt proves that despite the public distain the English professed they felt toward militias to they
needed tory irregulars, that is what Ferguson commanded at Kings Mt.
Cornwallis failed to subdue the south because the militias destroyed his supply lines and made
foraging dangerous, almost suicidal.
this was accomplished by militias USING THEIR PRIVATLY OWNED FIREARMS.
Did you by any chance go to school in England?
that is about the only place they teach this crap.

He wasn't ordered to link up with Clinton. Do me a favor stop now and go and actually study the war. Clinton was in New York. Yorktown is in central Virginia. Cornwallis had already sent some troops to Clinton and Clinton had recalled the troops under Arnold but Cornwallis wasn't going anywhere. He was investing in a deep water port so he could be reinforced from the sea. It was strictly because the French won the Battle of the Chesapeake keeping the British fleet away that the siege succeeded.

This fantasy that a couple of minor skirmishes in South Carolina led to Yorktown is based on nothing historical. Cornwallis defeated Greene and moved into Virginia where he skirmished with Lafayette and raided throughout the spring and summer of 1781 with the last major action in the Carolinas being on March 15. Hardly a direct road to the surrender in October.

You are the one who needs to do more research, Clinton was supposed to leave New York and meet
Cornwallis but was held there by the Americans with no help from the French.
Every time you post you make your miscomprehension clearer.

No. Clinton made no attempt to leave New York. You will find no such historical record. He sent a series of rambling letters to his generals through the spring and summer indicating he believed the French and Americans were maneuvering to attack New York and that is why he recalled Arnold and the bulk of the troops under his command as well as a substantial number of those Cornwallis had as well.