Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2 

 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

"The founders correctly wanted citizen soldiers to defend freedom because they felt standing armies were always corrupt because they work for who pays them."




So were they right and so is that what you think our professional armed force, really ?

But look you started a off topic discussion here, so why not just a new thread with your contention "The founders correctly wanted citizen soldiers to defend freedom because they felt standing armies were always corrupt because they work for who pays them."

Happy to join you there, but as to being topic here, anymore, b'bye.



YES! The founders were absolutely right.
If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever.

No democracy can stand with a paid standing army.

Iraq and Afghanistan are additional proof.
We murdered millions and no one is protesting because the media was "embedded" and given good stories, and the troops are well paid with pensions, GI Bill free tuition, etc.

It is obvious our current standing army is not only useless but actually is CAUSING us to be under more threat than if we had no standing army. They consume half our national budget and cause us to be retaliated against.

They lie to us.

Last edited by Rigby5, 10/12/2017, 4:22 am
10/12/2017, 4:21 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


Okay (and thanks doing as I asked, too)

So I'll go with this:

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

And BTW "If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever."

Good point, but would we have won any more than we did ? ( Ho Chi Minh City , right )

But be careful, son.
My brother wrote home from there in 1967, pulling rank on our lifer M/Sargent Daddy ordering him to make sure none his bothers came to fight that dirty lost war.

Our Dad, a B-17 E-4 tech, one of the first, a flight engineer in the Regular Army AC in 1938 and a veteran that went both up Korea and back down again, too, followed those orders, thank goodness.

Tell us what you know that war personally.

Then, sure after the French Foreign Legion got whipped, better we had left it to French mercs, to be sure.
After all it was imperialistic war fought in the post imperialistic age, right ?
 

Last edited by Geezess, 10/12/2017, 5:48 am
10/12/2017, 5:27 am Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Noserose Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3154
Karma: 10 (+20/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


Who are you going to call to help after an earthquake, firestorm, hurricane or any severe national disaster? The boy scouts? the cops? The pink hat ladies? The army? yeah the [sign in to see URL] are there to help and protect us.

---
--------------------------------------------------------------
"libido sciendi"..... the passion to know.
10/12/2017, 6:01 pm Link to this post PM Noserose
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


... actually you are thinking of the National Guard which have their roots in the real State Militias and their C in C is their State Governor, until they are called up, mobilized, or Federalized.


 
10/12/2017, 9:50 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Noserose Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3154
Karma: 10 (+20/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


[sign in to see URL] not call in the rest of the military? Get them out of their barracks and working? They are getting paid anyway.

---
--------------------------------------------------------------
"libido sciendi"..... the passion to know.
10/12/2017, 9:58 pm Link to this post PM Noserose
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

Okay (and thanks doing as I asked, too)

So I'll go with this:

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

And BTW "If Vietnam had been fought with paid mercenaries, none of the troops coming back would have been protesting, so the war would have gone on forever."

Good point, but would we have won any more than we did ? ( Ho Chi Minh City , right )

But be careful, son.
My brother wrote home from there in 1967, pulling rank on our lifer M/Sargent Daddy ordering him to make sure none his bothers came to fight that dirty lost war.

Our Dad, a B-17 E-4 tech, one of the first, a flight engineer in the Regular Army AC in 1938 and a veteran that went both up Korea and back down again, too, followed those orders, thank goodness.

Tell us what you know that war personally.

Then, sure after the French Foreign Legion got whipped, better we had left it to French mercs, to be sure.
After all it was imperialistic war fought in the post imperialistic age, right ?
 




First of all, the whole point of every amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to maintain state sovereignty against any attempt by the federal government to increase its power over them.
So the constitution clearly prohibits ANY federal firearm law .

There was to be no standing federal army at all, and it was the states that were supposed to arm and supply the troops the federal government would borrow when needed.
If you remember how divisions are characterized, they belong to a specific state. For example, the 32nd Infantry division was from Wisconsin.
In the Civil War for example, each division was not only uniformed differently by state, but also trained, fed, supplied, etc., by their respective states.
The only thing the federal government supplied was the leadership.

As to the cartoon, it is totally wrong.
The only cannon in the American revolution was privately owned.
Privateer powerful ships were the norm.
Private ownership of weapons of mass destruction was not only allowed, but expected.

Whether or not we would have defeated the Vietnamese if a pure mercenary force was used is not relevant to me. I did not want us to win, because I believe in self determination for the Vietnamese.
The point is Iraq and Afghanistan are worse because mercenary forces never protest, so can do unspeakable horrors. The example of torture and abuses we later learned about prove that.
10/12/2017, 11:05 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Noserose wrote:

Who are you going to call to help after an earthquake, firestorm, hurricane or any severe national disaster? The boy scouts? the cops? The pink hat ladies? The army? yeah the [sign in to see URL] are there to help and protect us.



The original way it was is that states maintained their own divisions. There was no standing army.
So what we now call the national guard, should have stayed as state militia, the way it used to be.

The advantage of state militias is they are not banned from acting in side the US by the Posse Comitatus Act.

{...
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed to prevent US military personnel from acting as law enforcement agents on US soil. This was common practice before 1878, particularly in areas of the West where the US military was often the only law enforcement to be found. Soldiers often enforced civilian laws whenever it was necessary.

The Posse Comitatus Act banned this practice, and the Act still remains in effect. The text (18 [sign in to see URL]. Section 1385), reads:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
...}

Federal forces then are really supposed to be banned from keeping the peace.

States are supposed to be in control, not the federal government.
10/12/2017, 11:16 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

... actually you are thinking of the National Guard which have their roots in the real State Militias and their C in C is their State Governor, until they are called up, mobilized, or Federalized.

 



No I am not thinking of the National Guard, but all the divisions of the US military.
For example, the 32nd division was by Wisconsin.

For example, in the Civil war we think of uniforms being blue or grey, but that is not true. The reality is they division were run by each state, so had totally unique appearance.

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

The National Guard did not exist until 1916, and it was all state run militia until then.
In fact, it is likely illegal for the federal government to take over the state militias like they did in 1916.
10/12/2017, 11:24 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


I say, I say. ..."First of all, the whole point of every amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to maintain state sovereignty against any attempt by the federal government to increase its power over them."

0
o
.
--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--



Last edited by Geezess, 10/12/2017, 11:36 pm
10/12/2017, 11:34 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Noserose wrote:

[sign in to see URL] not call in the rest of the military? Get them out of their barracks and working? They are getting paid anyway.



When they were run by the states, the states could do that.

But once the federal government took over the troops, they are limited by laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, from doing many things, like even maintaining order or directing traffic.
10/12/2017, 11:55 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

I say, I say. ..."First of all, the whole point of every amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to maintain state sovereignty against any attempt by the federal government to increase its power over them."

0
o
.
--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--





The states were refusing to join into the United State in signing the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added in order to prevent federal abuse.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect state authority so states would be willing join.

{...
The committee set up to study the confederation proposed a draft in the summer of 1777 and the formal Articles of Confederation were adopted by the congress on November 15, 1777. The Articles still had to be ratified though by each colony. The last state to ratify was Maryland on March 1, 1781, and from that time the Articles of Confederation were the ruling document of the United States of America until the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1788.
...
By 1787, the states were convinced that the Articles of Confederation needed to be revised and the Congressional delegates met in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17 to try to make the necessary changes. Many present, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed that the Articles were wholly insufficient and needed to be done away with completely. Consequently, what became known as the Virginia Plan, was presented to the Congress by Edmund Randolph, a Virginia delegate. Largely written by James Madison, the Virginia Plan, called for a completely new government and constitution with a much stronger central government. The picture at the right is James Madison's own copy of the Virginia Plan.

After much deliberation, the Congress voted to accept the new constitution on September 17, 1787. In order for the Constitution to take effect though it had to be ratified or accepted by 9 of the 13 colonies. This is when a very strong cry for a Bill of Rights occurred.
...
Federalists believed a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because they believed that the Constitution only gave the government limited powers that were specifically listed. The government had no power to do things it was not entitled to in the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton believed that the people were not giving up any rights by accepting the Constitution. Therefore, in his view, it was not necessary to protect something which was not taken away from them with a Bill of Rights.

The Federalists also believed, though, that adding a Bill of Rights could be very dangerous. If specific rights to be retained by the people were listed in the Constitution, they believed it would imply that any rights not listed were not protected and that the government would gradually encroach upon these rights.

The Anti-Federalists remained unpersuaded. They wanted guarantees for such things as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government and many others, specifically listed in the Constitution.
...
The impasse was finally overcome by what is known as the Massachusetts Compromise. The Massachusetts ratifying convention finally got enough Anti-Federalists on board by recommending a number of amendments be adopted by the First Congress under the new constitution. So the Anti-Federalists voted yes, on the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added. Four of the next five states to ratify did so with similar demands. North Carolina refused to ratify until significant steps had been made toward a Bill of Rights.
...}

][sign in to see URL]

10/13/2017, 12:03 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


I hope your revisionist song and dance about my point that in today's term the NG is the old State militia until it's Federalized continues.

I say, I say. your myths about the righteousness of the war to maintain human bondage are nicer than the traitorous truth of it all, Son.

Last edited by Geezess, 10/13/2017, 4:43 pm
10/13/2017, 2:42 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1113
Karma: 5 (+8/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


I think the logical thing to do would be to have some balance.

We don't need the massive military force that we have today, not we there isn't major war like WWII.

At the same time, there are advantages to having a prepared and organized military.

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
10/13/2017, 4:38 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

I hope your revisionist song and dance about my point that in today's term the NG is the old State militia until it's Federalized continues.

I say, I say. your myths about the righteousness of the war to maintain human bondage are nicer than the traitorous truth of it all, Son.




What I am saying is that the actual army was the old state militias because that is what the founders established.

The National Guard was started in 1916 in order to claim there still was old state militias, when in reality the feds had already taken them over illegally. The other main reason the feds started the National Guard is that they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and could be used for suppression inside the country.
10/14/2017, 4:12 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


From 1775 before the Constitution there were always also Federal (or Continental) troops.

But your myth is nice.
10/14/2017, 3:43 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3304
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


Trivia, first local militia 1607, first colony wide militia 1636 Massachusetts. First to use the term "National Guard" 1824 by some militias in N.Y. in honor of Lafayette. France's militia was titled "French National Guard." emoticon
10/14/2017, 4:56 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

From 1775 before the Constitution there were always also Federal (or Continental) troops.

But your myth is nice.



If you have a temporary army during times of war, that are all volunteer from the general population, that is not a standing army.
What the founders rightfully did not trust is a military that was permanent and for pay, because then they only do what those who pay them want.

Do you disagree with the concern the founders had?
10/14/2017, 10:31 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

Trivia, first local militia 1607, first colony wide militia 1636 Massachusetts. First to use the term "National Guard" 1824 by some militias in N.Y. in honor of Lafayette. France's militia was titled "French National Guard." emoticon



You are missing the point.
Originally we only had state militias.
Then there was no standing army, and the troops were supplied by the state militias when needed.
The fact the federal government took over the state militias and the name national guard, was wrong and we should not have let that happen.
10/14/2017, 10:35 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1547
Karma: 0 (+4/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


"Army Birthdays
The U.S. Army was founded on 14 June 1775, when the Continental Congress authorized enlistment of expert riflemen to serve the United Colonies for one year. For more on the history of the U.S. Army birthday, click here: the Army birthday.

Since 1775 Congress has also prescribed the organization and structure of the Army. This includes various branches into which Soldiers can be assigned. In many cases these branch distinctions are reflected in the Army's system for designating units and in the U.S. Army Regimental System. The Army Organization Act of 1950 (enacted 28 June 1950) set forth the legal basis for the various basic and special branches in the current Army (see Title 10, United States Code, Sections 3063 and 3064). It also permits the creation of other branches as the Secretary of the Army considers necessary. See the note below for more information on The Army Organization Act of 1950.

In recognition that many of today's branches have existed since 1775 "

[sign in to see URL]
10/15/2017, 9:41 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1644
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


The founding fathers were 18th century, anti-British (especially anti the monarchy system) and many of them were puritans.

To base your life on what they thought is a little restrictive.

On the whole though, if you could exist without standing armed forces it would be wonderful. But a country that others want to do down can't. Of course this is somewhat a circular argument because a hell of a lot of why others want to do America down is because America has done them down. Often (usually?) without reasonable reason.
10/15/2017, 11:00 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Geezess wrote:

"Army Birthdays
The U.S. Army was founded on 14 June 1775, when the Continental Congress authorized enlistment of expert riflemen to serve the United Colonies for one year. For more on the history of the U.S. Army birthday, click here: the Army birthday.

Since 1775 Congress has also prescribed the organization and structure of the Army. This includes various branches into which Soldiers can be assigned. In many cases these branch distinctions are reflected in the Army's system for designating units and in the U.S. Army Regimental System. The Army Organization Act of 1950 (enacted 28 June 1950) set forth the legal basis for the various basic and special branches in the current Army (see Title 10, United States Code, Sections 3063 and 3064). It also permits the creation of other branches as the Secretary of the Army considers necessary. See the note below for more information on The Army Organization Act of 1950.

In recognition that many of today's branches have existed since 1775 "

[sign in to see URL]




I don't see your point, because branches, funding, etc. is just a framework.
It is not a standing army.
It is the barracks and leadership, with the majority to be filled in by volunteer citizen soldiers only when needed.
10/16/2017, 12:05 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Yobbo wrote:

The founding fathers were 18th century, anti-British (especially anti the monarchy system) and many of them were puritans.

To base your life on what they thought is a little restrictive.

On the whole though, if you could exist without standing armed forces it would be wonderful. But a country that others want to do down can't. Of course this is somewhat a circular argument because a hell of a lot of why others want to do America down is because America has done them down. Often (usually?) without reasonable reason.



Because the US is surrounded by water, it would take a great deal of time and obvious activity if one wanted to attack the US.
That is why no one has even tried to attack the US since 1812.
So it is pretty foolish for us to be wasting all this money for hundreds of years, on something that is totally unnecessary.
If instead you do it like the Swiss, and just train all average citizens, then you don't need a standing army ahead of time.
10/16/2017, 12:08 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1644
Karma: 10 (+14/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


You would not need the aggressive parts of a standing army but you'd need men to maintain the equipment.
10/16/2017, 12:31 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3304
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

quote:

Yobbo wrote:

The founding fathers were 18th century, anti-British (especially anti the monarchy system) and many of them were puritans.

To base your life on what they thought is a little restrictive.

On the whole though, if you could exist without standing armed forces it would be wonderful. But a country that others want to do down can't. Of course this is somewhat a circular argument because a hell of a lot of why others want to do America down is because America has done them down. Often (usually?) without reasonable reason.



Because the US is surrounded by water, it would take a great deal of time and obvious activity if one wanted to attack the US.
That is why no one has even tried to attack the US since 1812.
So it is pretty foolish for us to be wasting all this money for hundreds of years, on something that is totally unnecessary.
If instead you do it like the Swiss, and just train all average citizens, then you don't need a standing army ahead of time.



That is not true, Switzerland has conscription and with that comes privileges with weapons, the average citizen is trained which the requirement is you are trained by private gun ranges. The Swiss also have a law that requires their citizens to answer many questions, one including does anyone in your household object from you having a weapon, if the answer is yes, you have a problem. So I wouldn't brag about the Swiss as if they are willy nilly on laws, they have some extremely tight laws that work.
10/16/2017, 1:52 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

Yobbo wrote:

You would not need the aggressive parts of a standing army but you'd need men to maintain the equipment.



Obviously. You need people to do all the annual training, maintain operational ability, provide standing leadership that would take too long to work up, keep surveillance, do air traffic control between airports, etc.
10/16/2017, 2:04 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

quote:

Rigby5 wrote:

quote:

Yobbo wrote:

The founding fathers were 18th century, anti-British (especially anti the monarchy system) and many of them were puritans.

To base your life on what they thought is a little restrictive.

On the whole though, if you could exist without standing armed forces it would be wonderful. But a country that others want to do down can't. Of course this is somewhat a circular argument because a hell of a lot of why others want to do America down is because America has done them down. Often (usually?) without reasonable reason.



Because the US is surrounded by water, it would take a great deal of time and obvious activity if one wanted to attack the US.
That is why no one has even tried to attack the US since 1812.
So it is pretty foolish for us to be wasting all this money for hundreds of years, on something that is totally unnecessary.
If instead you do it like the Swiss, and just train all average citizens, then you don't need a standing army ahead of time.



That is not true, Switzerland has conscription and with that comes privileges with weapons, the average citizen is trained which the requirement is you are trained by private gun ranges. The Swiss also have a law that requires their citizens to answer many questions, one including does anyone in your household object from you having a weapon, if the answer is yes, you have a problem. So I wouldn't brag about the Swiss as if they are willy nilly on laws, they have some extremely tight laws that work.



First of all, I never suggested that military training should not be mandatory and universal.

Second is that I did not say to exactly copy the Swiss. I just said that mandatory universal training like the Swiss do is a way to avoid having a large standing army.

Third is that it is not necessary for every single person to have weapons at hand. I think it is better if they do, but certainly one could have local armories as we do now for the National Guard. where additional weapons can be stored. You need ranges to practice at anyway.
10/16/2017, 2:11 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3304
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


So a person who seems to be against the military has no problem with conscription into that military?
10/16/2017, 5:37 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

So a person who seems to be against the military has no problem with conscription into that military?



It is the exact opposite.

What is dangerous is a military that volunteers to take orders for money.
That is a mercenary force that does not represent the people.

Mandatory conscription ensures the military represents the people because it is by and of the people, and is not beholding to those who pay them. You want a military that will NOT follow orders if the orders are immoral or illegal. The only way to do that is if it is comprised of citizen soldiers, who do not intend to make a career out of it.

10/16/2017, 5:46 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3304
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


They get a paycheck plus bennies and they can move up just as you can in any other job, they aren't always fighting wars. A standing military that will not follow orders, good luck with that.
10/16/2017, 6:31 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 5139
Karma: 4 (+19/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Were the founders right to be against standing armies?


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

They get a paycheck plus bennies and they can move up just as you can in any other job, they aren't always fighting wars. A standing military that will not follow orders, good luck with that.



The whole point I have been making is to NOT have a standing army.
Volunteers will follow orders better and fight harder, IF the orders are valid.
But if the orders are invalid, then they would NOT (edit) obey them.
The whole point is that it is wrong and even illegal to follow orders ALL the time, even when they are wrong or illegal.
IE, the Holocaust for example.
The last thing a democratic republic should have is a standing, mercenary, military.


Last edited by Rigby5, 10/17/2017, 5:22 am
10/17/2017, 12:30 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top