The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[JoeB131]

Dude, the Republicans are never going to win another Presidential election.

This is shockingly stupid - even by liberal level.

Simple Demagraphics, man. America is at the point the Europeans came to decades ago, and they could either be an empire or a welfare state, and they voted for welfare state...

Wow! A moment of honesty here! So you're now admitting that the left has created a welfare state, when we could have continued to be the empire we had once built?

Guy, the thing is, I don't see a "welfare state" as a bad thing. A humane society takes care of its own.

And why the **** would you want an empire? What good does it do you to dominate some backward people on the other side of the planet. (Not that your chicken-shit ass would actually sign up for military service.)

 

[P@triot]

Stupid person, how easily you are manipulated into voting against your own interests is showing.

But as long as Yous gots your gun and you bible, bay Jay-zus, you'll keep voting to make yourself poorer...

Idiot.

Joe - seriously, you sound like a certified nut who has completely gone off the tracks. The fact that you believe we should vote ourselves wealthier but are "voting ourselves poorer" says it all. Voting for government representatives to make you wealthy was NEVER the intent of our founding fathers. Wealth is supposed to be accumulated individually, through your own personal endeavors. Not through the process of trading your freedom for votes on the promise of communist redistribution.

You've been this bitter, unbearable asshole ever since some business owner cut you loss when you had medical bills. You're so miserable, nobody can stand you. Either let it the **** go already, or go get yourself some actual mental health assistance. You're doing yourself no justice sitting behind a keyboard ranting like an absolute maniac that the U.S. needs communism.

And did you ever for once consider that maybe you misery, your bitterness, your misfortune, and you're problems stem from you mocking Jesus, rather than embracing Jesus? Radical, I know. But certainly, it is clear your way of hate, bitterness, and beer is not working. Maybe, just maybe, you should try something else?

 

[JoeB131]

LMAO.

You are a moron ass bite

As I said, you are an idiot, Joe, grow some balls and admit to the world you are just another punk looking for a handout.

You over estimate your influence, you people always do....

You think all hispanics want to take charity....son I am here to tell you that those folks actually work hard...unlike you they actually work hard.

It won't take them long to figure out people of your "persuasion" simply want their money

Between their Catholicism and their work ethic they will learn to tell you to **** off.

Let me know when YOU are coming for my guns, ummmk?

]

Guy the problem is that you think the hard working people are on your side.

They aren't.

Oh, the religious stupids are... but most Americans looked at Romney, saw a rich douchebag who laid people like them off, and voted against him.

The GOP is done, and frankly, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Incidently, when you cite their "Catholicism", maybe you need to know more about Catholics. Except for the social issues, Catholics are actually pretty ******* liberal.

 

[P@triot]

Dude, the Republicans are never going to win another Presidential election.

This is shockingly stupid - even by liberal level.

Simple Demagraphics, man. America is at the point the Europeans came to decades ago, and they could either be an empire or a welfare state, and they voted for welfare state...

Wow! A moment of honesty here! So you're now admitting that the left has created a welfare state, when we could have continued to be the empire we had once built?

Guy, the thing is, I don't see a "welfare state" as a bad thing. A humane society takes care of its own.

And why the **** would you want an empire? What good does it do you to dominate some backward people on the other side of the planet. (Not that your chicken-shit ass would actually sign up for military service.)

No - a communist society "takes care of it's own". And there is nothing "humane" about communism - which includes killing millions because they don't have the means to take care of them - after promising them they would.

As far as "empire" - I guess we have a different definition. I look at an empire as a thriving economic success. Not an oppressive nazi regime invading other nations. I guess you're right from a technical sense - but in today's world, they talk about the Yankees as being an "empire", Microsoft as being an "empire", etc.

 

[P@triot]

Guy the problem is that you think the hard working people are on your side.

They aren't.

Oh, the religious stupids are... but most Americans looked at Romney, saw a rich douchebag who laid people like them off, and voted against him.

The GOP is done, and frankly, they have no one to blame but themselves

It never stops being funny how uninformed liberals are and how they just make shit up - especially their version of history.

Here's some actual FACTS for you, you bitter little ass-wipe:

Obama captured 61,173,739 (or 50.5%) of the popular vote, while Romney captured 58,167,260 (or 48.0%).

So in your warped (bitter) mind, barely half of America = "most Americans"?

Obama gets 50.5% and bitter JoeB. here declares it "most Americans"

Who Won The Popular Vote In 2012?

 

[Antares]

(Smile, I am a hard working people)

Joe you are WOEFULLY uninformed

REAL working people aren't like you Joe, they don't want anything for free...they want more of what they've earned....

You?

You want a handout....you are like a South Sider in Chicago demanding their "Obama Phone".

Now as to Catholicism?

You are used to American Catholicism....that ain't what is going on in the rest of the world.

Here is your biggest problem, there are too many of me ready to slap the shit out of people like you.

Hell you think Romney lost because he was a "Conservative"...you are an idiot.

He wasn't a conservative and therefore did not get the base out.

You go ahead and ride the Hillary Horse.....Benghazi ain't going away.

LMAO.

You are a moron ass bite

As I said, you are an idiot, Joe, grow some balls and admit to the world you are just another punk looking for a handout.

You over estimate your influence, you people always do....

You think all hispanics want to take charity....son I am here to tell you that those folks actually work hard...unlike you they actually work hard.

It won't take them long to figure out people of your "persuasion" simply want their money

Between their Catholicism and their work ethic they will learn to tell you to **** off.

Let me know when YOU are coming for my guns, ummmk?

]

Guy the problem is that you think the hard working people are on your side.

They aren't.

Oh, the religious stupids are... but most Americans looked at Romney, saw a rich douchebag who laid people like them off, and voted against him.

The GOP is done, and frankly, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Incidently, when you cite their "Catholicism", maybe you need to know more about Catholics. Except for the social issues, Catholics are actually pretty ******* liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

[Joe - seriously, you sound like a certified nut who has completely gone off the tracks. The fact that you believe we should vote ourselves wealthier but are "voting ourselves poorer" says it all. Voting for government representatives to make you wealthy was NEVER the intent of our founding fathers. Wealth is supposed to be accumulated individually, through your own personal endeavors. Not through the process of trading your freedom for votes on the promise of communist redistribution.

Guy, I don't give a **** what the Founding Slave Rapists thought.

The fact is, the GOP manipulates stupid people like you into voting for free trade, right to work, at-will employment, cutting medical benefits, and you wonder why you are less well off than your parents were, and you scream, "Must be them Welfare People"!

You've been this bitter, unbearable asshole ever since some business owner cut you loss when you had medical bills. You're so miserable, nobody can stand you. Either let it the **** go already, or go get yourself some actual mental health assistance. You're doing yourself no justice sitting behind a keyboard ranting like an absolute maniac that the U.S. needs communism.?

Actually, most people who know me like me. Sorry. Just the way it is.

I just see no reason to support a system that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't. Not when 1 out of four have inadequate health insurance or 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical crisis. That's just ten kinds of fucked up, and if you had any intellect, you'd admit that.

[
And did you ever for once consider that maybe you misery, your bitterness, your misfortune, and you're problems stem from you mocking Jesus, rather than embracing Jesus? Radical, I know. But certainly, it is clear your way of hate, bitterness, and beer is not working. Maybe, just maybe, you should try something else?

Dude, I grew up with Christianity, and realized that I simply couldn't worship a diety that drowned babies and sent them to hell. That was too fucked up for my way of thinking.

The best thing I can say about you God is that he doesn't exist, because, honestly, the universe would be truly messed up if he did. You can worship a sociopath who murders his son/himself over a petty sin. I refuse to.

Now, Philosophically, Christianity has its good point, but the good point- loving thy neighbor, treating people the way you'd want to be treated, taking care of the poor and such. Not being greedy for money. That'snot what the Religious Right is about.

I've read the bible. Nowhere does Jesus advocate tax cuts for rich douchebags. He says they are all going to hell, and frankly, that's fine with me.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe you are WOEFULLY uninformed

REAL working people aren't like you Joe, they don't want anything for free...they want more of what they've earned....

You?

You want a handout....you are like a South Sider in Chicago demanding their "Obama Phone".

Now as to Catholicism?

You are used to American Catholicism....that ain't what is going on in the rest of the world.

Here is your biggest problem, there are too many of me ready to slap the shit out of people like you.

Hell you think Romney lost because he was a "Conservative"...you are an idiot.

He wasn't a conservative and therefore did not get the base out.

You go ahead and ride the Hillary Horse.....Benghazi ain't going away.

Benghazi went away a long time ago. Even Faux News ain't talking about it anymore.

Working people don't want stuff for free, they just want a fair shake. And that'dbe fine, if 1% didn't control 90% of the wealth in this country.

Romney lost becaue he was a rich douchebag who didn't hide behind the Bible to try to fool stupid people like you into voting for him.

The thing is, people aren't stupid. They know the GOP is a fraud. I figured it out late in the game...

 

[Vandalshandle]

As was stated by another poster, the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, since the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure. The Bill of Rights was written to curb such federal powers, because some felt that the Constitution gave the government too much power. However, the 2nd amendment has been taken completely out of context. In the 1700's and before, militia service was mandatory for young men. There was no standing army. The militia was called up to fight the Indians, the French, and the British, and then sent home after each crisis. Each militia man knew that it was his responsibility to provide his own weapon at his own expense. None of the Founding fathers even considered the idea of a standing army that might take over the country. All the hell they were saying was, that the federal government was not going to do away with militias, and furthermore, was not going to start providing rifles to the militia. If the Founders were all that concerned about a tyrannical federal government, they would have specifically turned over ownership of cannon, warships, and forts to the states. George Washington's first crisis as president was to raise a militia to put down the Whiskey rebellion, which he did without hesitation

 

[JoeB131]

It never stops being funny how uninformed liberals are and how they just make shit up - especially their version of history.

Here's some actual FACTS for you, you bitter little ass-wipe:

Obama captured 61,173,739 (or 50.5%) of the popular vote, while Romney captured 58,167,260 (or 48.0%).

So in your warped (bitter) mind, barely half of America = "most Americans"?

Obama gets 50.5% and bitter JoeB. here declares it "most Americans"

]

Fact is, even Republicans are breaking bad on Romney now. Check out your boy Roo, who says Romney lost because he wasn't a real conservative.

Fact of the matter is, you could have put a pile of manure on the GOP ticket, and it would have gotten the ever shrinking percentage Romney got. Romney lost. You guys put a plutocrat on the ballot, and people rejected him. Deal with it.

 

[P@triot]

As was stated by another poster, the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, since the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure. The Bill of Rights was written to curb such federal powers, because some felt that the Constitution gave the government too much power. However, the 2nd amendment has been taken completely out of context. In the 1700's and before, militia service was mandatory for young men. There was no standing army. The militia was called up to fight the Indians, the French, and the British, and then sent home after each crisis. Each militia man knew that it was his responsibility to provide his own weapon at his own expense. None of the Founding fathers even considered the idea of a standing army that might take over the country. All the hell they were saying was, that the federal government was not going to do away with militias, and furthermore, was not going to start providing rifles to the militia. If the Founders were all that concerned about a tyrannical federal government, they would have specifically turned over ownership of cannon, warships, and forts to the states. George Washington's first crisis as president was to raise a militia to put down the Whiskey rebellion, which he did without hesitation

This is ignorance on a level that we've never seen....

You cannot have states with independent military - hence the reason the states delegated it as 1 of the 18 enumerated powers to the federal government.

You truly are an absolute moron if you believe the U.S. Constitution was designed to give power to the federal government. It was designed to outline it's 18 enumerated powers and ensure that's all the power the federal government had (read the Federalist Papers stupid).

Furthermore, you truly are an absolute moron if you believe the 2nd Amendment was only about militia's. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear.

 

[P@triot]

Guy, I don't give a **** what the Founding Slave Rapists thought.

Guy, unfortunately for you, you don't have a choice but to "give a ****" what our founders thought - since they were 1,000x's the men you ever were and they not only founded this nation, they made the laws that stand today.

By the way, falsely accusing them of rape is a tired and played out communist propaganda tactic that stopped working on the educated masses roughly 50 years ago. Rule #1 to the communist - demonize what is right to convince people your way is not wrong.

The fact is, the GOP manipulates stupid people like you into voting for free trade, right to work, at-will employment, cutting medical benefits, and you wonder why you are less well off than your parents were, and you scream, "Must be them Welfare People"!

Funny, I'm WAY better off than my parents ever were. In fact, my parents are really struggling now because the government has spent their entire professional careers taking 50% of what they earned (and they weren't earning that much).

I just see no reason to support a system that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't.

Thank you for proving once and for all that you are completely and totally clueless. Nothing is more efficient and less "evil" than capitalism, and nothing is more inefficient, wasteful, and evil than communism. I've never heard of a capitalist society that has collapsed. I've never heard of a communist society that didn't collapse. I've never heard of a capitalist society that ended with mass murder. I've never heard of a communist society that didn't end with mass murder.

As I've asked you before (and you always avoid) - if communism is soooo great, why don't you move to Cuba? The weather is great and they are "flourishing" under the communist utopia you support. You could go live your dream (and just maybe you'll stop being such a bitter old *****).

Not when 1 out of four have inadequate health insurance or 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical crisis. That's just ten kinds of fucked up, and if you had any intellect, you'd admit that.

Uh, yeah - that's because 1 out of 4 have inadequate work ethic and/or job performance. And 100% of the 62% of the people that suffered a "medical bankruptcy" did so because they thought purchasing Blackberry's and plasma TV's was more important than saving and planning. The effort, performance, and planning of these people is 10,000 kinds of fucked up.

As usual, all you want to do is demonize the result. Instead of placing the blame where it belongs - the cause.

Dude, I grew up with Christianity, and realized that I simply couldn't worship a diety that drowned babies and sent them to hell. That was too fucked up for my way of thinking.

Jesus drowned babies and sent them to hell? Really? Seriously?

I've read the bible. Nowhere does Jesus advocate tax cuts for rich douchebags. He says they are all going to hell, and frankly, that's fine with me.

Clearly you have NEVER read the bible. Because if you did, you would know that Jesus never said that government is supposed to take by the force of a gun, 95% wasted on themselves, and the final 5% given to those in "need".

 

[JoeB131]

By the way, falsely accusing them of rape is a tired and played out communist propaganda tactic that stopped working on the educated masses roughly 50 years ago. Rule #1 to the communist - demonize what is right to convince people your way is not wrong.[/B]

Thomas Jefferson owned Sally Hemming. He fathered children on her. Since she was his property, there was no issue of consent. Hence- Thomas Jefferson was a slave rapist. Deal with it.

Funny, I'm WAY better off than my parents ever were. In fact, my parents are really struggling now because the government has spent their entire professional careers taking 50% of what they earned (and they weren't earning that much).

And you're not doing anything to take care of them and help them?

Thank you for proving once and for all that you are completely and totally clueless. Nothing is more efficient and less "evil" than capitalism, and nothing is more inefficient, wasteful, and evil than communism. I've never heard of a capitalist society that has collapsed. I've never heard of a communist society that didn't collapse. I've never heard of a capitalist society that ended with mass murder. I've never heard of a communist society that didn't end with mass murder.

so what you are saying is you are profounding ignorant. Capitalist society in this country collapsed twice- 1929 nd 2008. If the Government hadn't stepped in, things would have completely fallen apart. You might also want to look up Weimar Germany, Tsarist Russia, Nationalist China, and a few other Capitalist states that collapsed, usually because the greedy got too greedy.

You've never heard of a capitalist society that committed mass murder? I think the Native Americans would like to have a word with you.

As I've asked you before (and you always avoid) - if communism is soooo great, why don't you move to Cuba? The weather is great and they are "flourishing" under the communist utopia you support. You could go live your dream (and just maybe you'll stop being such a bitter old *****).

Again, you are the one who babbles on about "Communism" all day. (You'd honestly think the Cold War was still going on, the way you talk.) Cuba is poor because we've spent 50 years punishing it for rejecting us. We are like the worst stalker ex-boyfriend in that regard.

What I want, and Most Americans voted for in November, is a society that takes care of its own, and works for the 99%, not just the 1%.

Uh, yeah - that's because 1 out of 4 have inadequate work ethic and/or job performance. And 100% of the 62% of the people that suffered a "medical bankruptcy" did so because they thought purchasing Blackberry's and plasma TV's was more important than saving and planning. The effort, performance, and planning of these people is 10,000 kinds of fucked up.

Actually, 75% of those people had insurance when the medical crisis started.

As usual, all you want to do is demonize the result. Instead of placing the blame where it belongs - the cause.

Every other country has single payer, universal health care. They live longer, less of their babies die, they are less inclined to have chronic health problems, and they spend far less than we do. Oh, yeah, and no one gets filthy rich on someone else's suffering. Imagine that.

Jesus drowned babies and sent them to hell? Really? Seriously?

Jesus is God. God is Jesus. God drowned every baby in the world in the Great Flood because they were "Wicked". Seriously, I had a nun blurt this out when I was in the fifth grade. Of course, I've never heard a Christian come up with a LESS retarded reason why God needed to drown every baby on the planet.

Clearly you have NEVER read the bible. Because if you did, you would know that Jesus never said that government is supposed to take by the force of a gun, 95% wasted on themselves, and the final 5% given to those in "need".

[/QUOTE]

Actually, Jesus said SPECIFICALLY to "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" When the Pharisees whined and bitched about the Temple Tax. - Matthew 22:21, Luke 20:20, Mark 12:15.

 

[OODA_Loop]

the thing is, I don't see a "welfare state" as a bad thing. A humane society takes care of its own.

The leech will never go against the host.

 

[JoeB131]

the thing is, I don't see a "welfare state" as a bad thing. A humane society takes care of its own.

The leech will never go against the host.

The only Leeches I see are the big Wall Street Banksters who wrecked the economy, taking down our mortgages and 401K with them while still insising on a bailout and their bonuses.

 

[OODA_Loop]

the thing is, I don't see a "welfare state" as a bad thing. A humane society takes care of its own.

The leech will never go against the host.

The only Leeches I see are the big Wall Street Banksters who wrecked the economy, taking down our mortgages and 401K with them while still insising on a bailout and their bonuses.

I know it is always someone else fault with you.

Somtimes you have to look at you.

 

[JoeB131]

The leech will never go against the host.

The only Leeches I see are the big Wall Street Banksters who wrecked the economy, taking down our mortgages and 401K with them while still insising on a bailout and their bonuses.

I know it is always someone else fault with you.

Somtimes you have to look at you.

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

What I did was go to my job (which disappeared when the economy tanked), pay my mortgage (now underwater) set aside money in a 401K (which tanked).

I didn't get a bailout. I have to work a second job to make up the difference between what I made at my old job and what I make at the current one.

But please keep blaming working folks for what rich people did...

Man, Conservatism has devolved down into a form of Stockholm syndrome, hasn't it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As was stated by another poster, the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, since the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure. The Bill of Rights was written to curb such federal powers, because some felt that the Constitution gave the government too much power. However, the 2nd amendment has been taken completely out of context. In the 1700's and before, militia service was mandatory for young men. There was no standing army. The militia was called up to fight the Indians, the French, and the British, and then sent home after each crisis. Each militia man knew that it was his responsibility to provide his own weapon at his own expense. None of the Founding fathers even considered the idea of a standing army that might take over the country. All the hell they were saying was, that the federal government was not going to do away with militias, and furthermore, was not going to start providing rifles to the militia. If the Founders were all that concerned about a tyrannical federal government, they would have specifically turned over ownership of cannon, warships, and forts to the states. George Washington's first crisis as president was to raise a militia to put down the Whiskey rebellion, which he did without hesitation

This is ignorance on a level that we've never seen....

You cannot have states with independent military - hence the reason the states delegated it as 1 of the 18 enumerated powers to the federal government.

You truly are an absolute moron if you believe the U.S. Constitution was designed to give power to the federal government. It was designed to outline it's 18 enumerated powers and ensure that's all the power the federal government had (read the Federalist Papers stupid).

Furthermore, you truly are an absolute moron if you believe the 2nd Amendment was only about militia's. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear.

Rott,

You really need to think, before posting. Before the Constitusion, there was ONLY state militias. The first time that there was a federal military force in this country was the revolutionary war, for crying out loud, AND THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN A BUNCH OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATES GETTING TOGETHER AND AGREEING TO LET GEORGE WASHINGTON RUN THINGS for the duration of the revolution. The Articles of Conderation gave the federal government no power whatsoever to raise an army. That is why it was called the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! Jesus, Rott, how could the United States of America have an military if there was no such thing as the United States of America?

I'm pretty sure that the history that you learned is of another country.

 

[P@triot]

As was stated by another poster, the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, since the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure. The Bill of Rights was written to curb such federal powers, because some felt that the Constitution gave the government too much power. However, the 2nd amendment has been taken completely out of context. In the 1700's and before, militia service was mandatory for young men. There was no standing army. The militia was called up to fight the Indians, the French, and the British, and then sent home after each crisis. Each militia man knew that it was his responsibility to provide his own weapon at his own expense. None of the Founding fathers even considered the idea of a standing army that might take over the country. All the hell they were saying was, that the federal government was not going to do away with militias, and furthermore, was not going to start providing rifles to the militia. If the Founders were all that concerned about a tyrannical federal government, they would have specifically turned over ownership of cannon, warships, and forts to the states. George Washington's first crisis as president was to raise a militia to put down the Whiskey rebellion, which he did without hesitation

This is ignorance on a level that we've never seen....

You cannot have states with independent military - hence the reason the states delegated it as 1 of the 18 enumerated powers to the federal government.

You truly are an absolute moron if you believe the U.S. Constitution was designed to give power to the federal government. It was designed to outline it's 18 enumerated powers and ensure that's all the power the federal government had (read the Federalist Papers stupid).

Furthermore, you truly are an absolute moron if you believe the 2nd Amendment was only about militia's. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear.

Rott,

You really need to think, before posting. Before the Constitusion, there was ONLY state militias. The first time that there was a federal military force in this country was the revolutionary war, for crying out loud, AND THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN A BUNCH OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATES GETTING TOGETHER AND AGREEING TO LET GEORGE WASHINGTON RUN THINGS for the duration of the revolution. The Articles of Conderation gave the federal government no power whatsoever to raise an army. That is why it was called the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! Jesus, Rott, how could the United States of America have an military if there was no such thing as the United States of America?

I'm pretty sure that the history that you learned is of another country.

Uh, hey stupid, where did I say anything about pre-Constitution days?!?! Yes, in 1776, you could have states with individual "army's". But let me ask you something now genius. If passivist California has it's own military, and Texas has it's own military, who gets to decide when we launch NUKES? You know - those little weapons that didn't exist in the 1700's, you ****'n moron.

As a single nation, if we have 50 different military's, and one was overly aggressive and decide to launch nukes or other MAJOR operations, the other 49 would pay the price. You have to have ONE military controlled by ONE man. Hence the reason we did move to this model, and hence the reason that the President controls the military and not congress (you can't afford to hold a vote every time there is a critical/urgent decisions that needs to be made in limited time).

Perhaps you should READ the debate before going off half-cocked about something that wasn't even being discussed? What a concept, uh stupid?

 

[Vandalshandle]

This is ignorance on a level that we've never seen....

You cannot have states with independent military - hence the reason the states delegated it as 1 of the 18 enumerated powers to the federal government.

You truly are an absolute moron if you believe the U.S. Constitution was designed to give power to the federal government. It was designed to outline it's 18 enumerated powers and ensure that's all the power the federal government had (read the Federalist Papers stupid).

Furthermore, you truly are an absolute moron if you believe the 2nd Amendment was only about militia's. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear.

Rott,

You really need to think, before posting. Before the Constitusion, there was ONLY state militias. The first time that there was a federal military force in this country was the revolutionary war, for crying out loud, AND THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN A BUNCH OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATES GETTING TOGETHER AND AGREEING TO LET GEORGE WASHINGTON RUN THINGS for the duration of the revolution. The Articles of Conderation gave the federal government no power whatsoever to raise an army. That is why it was called the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! Jesus, Rott, how could the United States of America have an military if there was no such thing as the United States of America?

I'm pretty sure that the history that you learned is of another country.

Uh, hey stupid, where did I say anything about pre-Constitution days?!?! Yes, in 1776, you could have states with individual "army's". But let me ask you something now genius. If passivist California has it's own military, and Texas has it's own military, who gets to decide when we launch NUKES? You know - those little weapons that didn't exist in the 1700's, you ****'n moron.

As a single nation, if we have 50 different military's, and one was overly aggressive and decide to launch nukes or other MAJOR operations, the other 49 would pay the price. You have to have ONE military controlled by ONE man. Hence the reason we did move to this model, and hence the reason that the President controls the military and not congress (you can't afford to hold a vote every time there is a critical/urgent decisions that needs to be made in limited time).

Perhaps you should READ the debate before going off half-cocked about something that wasn't even being discussed? What a concept, uh stupid?

Rott, your profanity, your verbal abuse, your immaturity, your disrespect, and above all, you abject ignorance has won you the status of "most offensive poster on the board" for today. Congratulations! Now, you have about 30 seconds before I put you on "ignore", so fame away! (but do it fast, because after that, you are invisible!)