• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My compromise.

danielpalos said:
The South fired on a Union fort.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You statement makes no sense, I think you need to re-read it.

No "militia" can stand up to a regular army.


The militia concept is a relic of the 18th century.
 
Rich2018 said:
You statement makes no sense, I think you need to re-read it.

No "militia" can stand up to a regular army.


The militia concept is a relic of the 18th century.
Click to expand...

It should merely depend on the wellness of regulation of the militia.

Your understanding is what makes no sense, no wonder you are confused.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Click to expand...
 
We should have no security problems in our free States. The People are the militia. Organize sufficient militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
 
danielpalos said:
We should have no security problems in our free States. The People are the militia. Organize sufficient militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

You've said this before

Explain

What use is a militia against crime ?

What other security issues do you see a militia solving ?
 
Rich2018 said:
You said the king sent an army (to oppose the American Revolution), I mentioned that in 1861, congress/the union sent an army also.
Click to expand...

Yes I would have to agree with that statement.
 
jdog21 said:
Yes I would have to agree with that statement.
Click to expand...

So, ultimately, the confederate states could never claim to be "sovereign" states.

As my politics lecturer said, US states cannot legally unilaterally leave to union whereas technically a Soviet Republic could leave the USSR.
 
Rich2018 said:
So, ultimately, the confederate states could never claim to be "sovereign" states.

As my politics lecturer said, US states cannot legally unilaterally leave to union whereas technically a Soviet Republic could leave the USSR.
Click to expand...

They can't now. But I fail to why a state or a group of states couldn't leave congress and the union and form their own country, which I would assume leads to another war but if those states that did leave held on long enough to be recognized as their own country through a treaty with its predecessor then it can call itself a new country and the war their independence. And the old country would call them traitors and their acts treason.
 
jdog21 said:
They can't now....
Click to expand...

They couldn't in 1861


...I fail to why a state or a group of states couldn't leave congress and the union and form their own country, which I would assume leads to another war but if those states that did leave held on long enough to be recognized as their own country through a treaty with its predecessor then it can call itself a new country and the war their independence. And the old country would call them traitors and their acts treason.
Click to expand...


Ask Congress who fought the bloodiest war the USA has ever fought in to prevent the confederate state from leaving.


Probably for the same reasons that the British tried to stop the American colonies leaving the empire.
 
Rich2018 said:
They couldn't in 1861





Ask Congress who fought the bloodiest war the USA has ever fought in to prevent the confederate state from leaving.


Probably for the same reasons that the British tried to stop the American colonies leaving the empire.
Click to expand...

So you agree they could then.
 
Rich2018 said:
I said the couldn't

ie: Could Not.
Click to expand...

Ask Congress who fought the bloodiest war the USA has ever fought in to prevent the confederate state from leaving.


Probably for the same reasons that the British tried to stop the American colonies leaving the empire.
Click to expand...
So as long as you win the war then you can
 
jdog21 said:
They can't now. But I fail to why a state or a group of states couldn't leave congress and the union and form their own country, which I would assume leads to another war but if those states that did leave held on long enough to be recognized as their own country through a treaty with its predecessor then it can call itself a new country and the war their independence. And the old country would call them traitors and their acts treason.
Click to expand...

Because for some reason the union feels a proprietary ownership of these states and the people in them. It all comes from some people thinking that they own others and their land.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes it's generally called a war of independence, and if you win, you can be a sovereign state

Example Texas from Mexico.
Click to expand...

I thought it was called being a traitorous criminal terrorist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom