The 2nd Amendment 'Was For When the British Were Coming'

In a final attempt to get the issue of the OP back on track (hint: it wasn't about who won the Revolutionary War), please watch the video attached to the OP.

Thank you.

Sheesh.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: crazyewok

do you honestly think the the uk won. hell the uk couldn't even beat a nation the was barely 35 years old, that didn't have a large standing army, and relied mainly on a militia force for a 2nd time. the best the british could manage was a draw. and you want to boast about burning down Washington.

hell half of the uk sailors were U.S. sailors and others that were shanghaied or to use their fancy word impressed into service by the royal navy. something to be real proud of.
then you failed to mention the spanking Jackson gave the invasion force the uk sent into New Orleans.

then you have to remember the attempted capture of Baltimore where not only was that invasion repulsed, our national anthem was pinned and to add insult to their injury sung to a english drinking tune.
yea so yuk it up some more, you only make yourself look ignorant and foolish.

The vast majority The British Military was fighting a little skirmish in Europe called " The Napoleonic Wars" at the same time as they where burning Washington to the ground.

Had the full force of The British Military been available in The U.S. then the outcome would have been entirely different i am certain.

a reply to: alldaylong

last off topic post, here i find necessary to school you once again as i did with your battle of the bugle comment.
from the wiki cuase it's fast, other sources say the same.

In April, 1814, with the defeat of Napoleon, the British adopted a more aggressive strategy, sending larger invasion armies. In September 1814, the British invaded and occupied eastern Maine. In the south-west, General Andrew Jackson destroyed the military strength of the Creek nation at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. The British victory at the Battle of Bladensburg in August 1814 allowed them to capture and burn Washington, D.C, but they were repulsed in an attempt to take Baltimore. American victories in September 1814 at the Battle of Plattsburgh repulsed the British invasions of New York, which along with pressure from merchants on the British government prompted British diplomats to drop their demands at Ghent for an independent native buffer state and territorial claims that London previously sought. Both sides agreed to a peace that restored the situation before the war began. However, it took six weeks for ships to cross the Atlantic so news of the peace treaty did not arrive before the British suffered a major defeat at New Orleans in January 1815.[4]
War of 1812

so after the defeat of Napoleon, in other words that war was over and the british were sending lager invasion forces, the best they could muster is a draw with a nation that was only about thrity five years old, used mostly militia. please ya don't know your history to well.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: alldaylong

last off topic post, here i find necessary to school you once again as i did with your battle of the bugle comment.
from the wiki cuase it's fast, other sources say the same.

In April, 1814, with the defeat of Napoleon, the British adopted a more aggressive strategy, sending larger invasion armies. In September 1814, the British invaded and occupied eastern Maine. In the south-west, General Andrew Jackson destroyed the military strength of the Creek nation at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. The British victory at the Battle of Bladensburg in August 1814 allowed them to capture and burn Washington, D.C, but they were repulsed in an attempt to take Baltimore. American victories in September 1814 at the Battle of Plattsburgh repulsed the British invasions of New York, which along with pressure from merchants on the British government prompted British diplomats to drop their demands at Ghent for an independent native buffer state and territorial claims that London previously sought. Both sides agreed to a peace that restored the situation before the war began. However, it took six weeks for ships to cross the Atlantic so news of the peace treaty did not arrive before the British suffered a major defeat at New Orleans in January 1815.[4]
War of 1812

so after the defeat of Napoleon, in other words that war was over and the british were sending lager invasion forces, the best they could muster is a draw with a nation that was only about thrity five years old, used mostly militia. please ya don't know your history to well.

You school me in nothing. In fact your post is total bo0llocks. Let's Start with this little gem......" In April, 1814, with the defeat of Napoleon"

The battle of Waterloo was in June 1815, 14 months after that date given. That was when Napoleon was defeated you fool.

en.wikipedia.org...

You need to stop reading those American History Books and get some real ones

a reply to: alldaylong

your the one that needs to read. he was defeated in 1814 placed in exile then escaped and started a second regime.

not a wiki.

Beginning in 1812, Napoleon began to encounter the first significant defeats of his military career, suffering through a disastrous invasion of Russia, losing Spain to the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula War, and enduring total defeat against an allied force by 1814. Exiled to the island of Elba in the Mediterranean, he escaped to France in early 1815 and set up a new regime. As allied troops mustered on the French frontiers, he raised a new Grand Army and marched into Belgium. He intended to defeat the allied armies one by one before they could launch a united attack.
Napoleon defeated at Waterloo

schooled for a third time.
he was defeated in April 1814 placed in exile on elba, then escaped his exile in 1815, after the war of 1812 was over. then started a new campaign during his second attempt. the war of 1812 last until dec 1814/ jan 1815. there was no war with france during that time.

as a matter of fact that period of 300 days the Bourbons were in charge again under Louis XVIII.
another wiki.

Louis XVIII signed the Treaty of Paris on 30 May 1814. The treaty gave France her 1792 borders, which extended east of the Rhine. She had to pay no war indemnity, and the occupying armies of the Sixth Coalition withdrew instantly from French soil. These generous terms would be reversed in the next Treaty of Paris after the Hundred Days (Napoleon's return to France in 1815).[96]
Louis XVIII of France

then once Napoleon was defeated the second time he returned to power.

a reply to: alldaylong

seeing that i showed you that you were indeed wrong, i would appreciate a apology for you calling me a fool or are you going to try to keep on denying facts that can be found world wide on this subject. which if you do it would surly show your ignorance.

ETA: i meant to include this in my other post, before this one. it comes from your link you provided.

On 13 March 1815, six days before Napoleon reached Paris, the powers at the Congress of Vienna declared him an outlaw.[8] Four days later, the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria, and Prussia mobilised armies to defeat Napoleon.[9] Napoleon knew that once his attempts at dissuading one or more of the Seventh Coalition allies from invading France had failed, his only chance of remaining in power was to attack before the coalition mobilised. If he could destroy the existing coalition forces south of Brussels before they were reinforced, he might be able to drive the British back to the sea and knock the Prussians out of the war. An additional consideration was that there were many French-speaking sympathisers in Belgium and a French victory might trigger a friendly revolution there. Also, the British troops in Belgium were largely second-line troops; most of the veterans of the Peninsular War had been sent to the United States and Canada to fight the War of 1812.[10]

Rah Rah America. Rah Rah Britain.

Doesn't really matter who won anymore, we're all in the same sinking ship now.

ON TOPIC.
I'm not surprised to see this in DC. No matter what the law says, they'll find a way to keep their restrictions any way they can. If I was the reporter, I'd have this on the news and file a suit against the county and Sheriff.

The Second is meant to justify the formation of regulated militias. It's not meant to defend the right to bear arms because that right is natural.

O dear a american that thinks they won the war of 1812 lol

Please tell me who started it?

Thats right the USA

Please tell me did the usa meet any of its war aims?
No
The status quo was kept


The UK and canada as the defender only had to keeo that status quo to win.


Remember too the UK was fighting a far far bigger war, the USA was just a tiny side show barely worth attension, that how unimportant you were.


As for new orleans? One battle won does not make a war won hell the battle was irrelevent was peace had been signed,

a reply to: crazyewok

I've learned to "adjust" to your blatant anti-American sentiment and arrogant rhetoric. I find it more amusing as time goes by.

That being said I find your statement to be a bit convoluted and incoherent. What exactly are you trying to infer???

Johnny Horton - The Battle of New Orleans


www.youtube.com...

Personally i'd say the 2nd was designed around a few ideas that we don't think about today

1. Weapons were expensive and in medieval times in Europe the lord of the area had to train and equip so many soldiers so they would obviously keep their expensive collection of arms and armour secure for training or actual battle as required. This lasted until standing armies were established but still followed in some ways the older ways with the establishments of local units and their central barracks.

2. The size of the place - if a few invading warships popped up near a fishing village in the US there probably won't really be time to get the weapons from a central store and with it still being a rather undiscovered country there was always the need to protect ones self from bears/wolves etc so people were expected to be able to be self sufficient enough to be able to survive until help could be fetched which could be days away

3. Trying to keep the politicans honest as they knew power corrupts (the founders probably could be used as zero point energy as they spin in their graves today)

4. No standing army, if you can't have a standing army then you need to have people available at the drop of a hat to be able to stand up and fight so being able to know one end of a gun from the other is rather nice so the militia idea where local groups train together to improve all their skills as its no point one person able to take the nuts off a gnat at 500 yards while the next guy can barely not shoot his friends

Gnerally i'd say as a brit it's a good rule but could of done with an extra polish or two to stop them from limiting you (short of nukes/chemical warfare) but they expected a revolution every generation to keep the zeal up and its never really happened so the ideals have sort of been lost

It took me about four months to get my conceal carry.

First I had to schedule and go to a safety course. This took about a week to arrange, but I had to wait for five other people to sign up before the class was big enough for them to run it. This cost roughly $250 per head.

Once I passed the class, I had to file for a certificate that said I was trained in handgun safety.

When that finally came in, I had to get the city and state to send me applications for the permit, fill them out, and mail them off. They went back and fourth a few times.

Finally, I got a letter saying I was authorized to go to the chief of police in my city and ask nicely if he would allow me to get a permit.
Once he agreed, it took about five minutes- they took my picture and printed it right there. Twice, because the officer running the machine couldn't copy my name correctly from my photo ID on his first try.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Johnny Horton - The Battle of New Orleans

www.youtube.com...

A pointless battle that did nothing to forward the war for either side....cause the war was over when it was fought


One battle does not make a war won.

Thats like saying the British won the revolutionary was just because we won the battle of Charleston.

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: crazyewok

I've learned to "adjust" to your blatant anti-American sentiment and arrogant rhetoric. I find it more amusing as time goes by.

That being said I find your statement to be a bit convoluted and incoherent. What exactly are you trying to infer???

Because I dont think the USA won every war in was in makes me Anti American? Ok.....


So you are either RAR RAR RAR farting red white and blue or a American Hater?

I would prefer to be in the middle thank you, there is much about the USA I respect, but a hell of a lot I don't mainly to do with your government..

a reply to: crazyewok

You in the middle? Amusing and a complete LIE.

I've read your post history. I've experienced much of it myself.

You are anti-american!

Don't babble off at the mouth and try and defend your position. You negative reputation and attitude precedes you in these threads.

You are what you spew. It ain't good and sure as hell ain't in the "middle".

Now go burn a flag and rid yourself of that napoleon complex.

I'll be petting my bald eagle...

not everyone, including bureaucrats and publicly
elected officials are as competent in the
understanding of the purpose of the second amendment.

obstacles to CCW are just another infringement of the right.

originally posted by: supergravity
a reply to: signalfire

The British are still coming and have never stopped. In 1913 they took us over financially and began to take this country apart. There is little left of the constitution because as long as people have there TV's and I phone's they are happily distracted.

???????????????????????????? What? Eh? You could have fooled us! We only just stopped repaying the money we borrowed to pay for the Second bloody World War!

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: crazyewok

You in the middle? Amusing and a complete LIE.

I've read your post history. I've experienced much of it myself.

You are anti-american!

Don't babble off at the mouth and try and defend your position. You negative reputation and attitude precedes you in these threads.

You are what you spew. It ain't good and sure as hell ain't in the "middle".

Now go burn a flag and rid yourself of that napoleon complex.

I'll be petting my bald eagle...

Whatever cant bothered to talk to people who cant read.

Ps you will notice I have a few American freinds on ATS and there a whole range of American I respect.

The British are our Government now.