The thing that fascinates me about that statement is that the gungrabbers used the same argument in the mid '90's -- I actually had a gun grabber tell me "I have no problem with you guys keeping and bearing all the muskets you want, but Thomas Jefferson never imagined AK - 47's."
A rapidly emerging litmus test for me is that if some one needs to trot out a moonbat argument to explain why a particular candidate or policy position is a "bad thing", that probably means that there is some merit to it...
Thank you for confirming my support for Paul.
In defending our interest over seas I see no real offense against the Constitution and the way our country has evolved, tough some arguments can be made. However I think the founders would have no issue with protecting our international interests. The Barbary Pirates come to mind.
Now as to a debate on whether what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, a debate on having our military overseas protecting our allies and interests, that is all good and well, and we can pull out the Constitution and both sides can make their points, but in the end reality has to come into play. It is a much different world both inside and outside our boarders. 30 Wooden Ships are not going to pull up in Boston harbor as an act of war, a single nuke on a missile will. One man with one bomb can do more harm in a millisecond than the sum total of all the continental armies of the 18th century combined could do in their wildest dreams. I would rather have eyes and ears out there watching and feet on the ground protecting our interest.