Hi, Ridgerunner!
I think that battle is a little different; even with the best training and best weapons our physiological changes cause some distraction, as well as the intended target being mobile and an actual threat.
Yet, the comparison remains; when the 2nd was established it could not be foreseen that there would be a continental army (branched out into several specialized services) nor that technology would make weapons as destructive as they’ve become.
Consider too that the active force in defending the colonies were not trained soldiers but the average joes–it would tend to reason that there had to be some sort of fear of reprisal from the British monarch and the hidden threat of those who, in his absence, would aspire for dominance and control.
Further, consider additional factors… while the constitution reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is there room there to believe that the constitution meant ‘only white men are created equal?’
There isn’t, is there?
Yet, we know from historical experience that the aborigines and other non-Caucasians were not treated as equal.
The point I’m making is not for distress but for clarification… even when the highest “law of the land” demanded it, the application of the law did not take to the letter of the law.
Things changed for the better; things remained; yet, some things changed for the worst. When we make void the voice of reason, useless and negative values tend to rise to the top and be celebrated as crème de la crème. (There’s a hidden value to crème–if you have taken care of new born babes you would get the full meaning.)
Maran atha!
Angel
