Who here agrees that we should abolish the standing army?

[dude58677]

We don't need it, we have 100 millon gun owners defending the homeland and we are seperated by two oceans. All we need is a Navy defending the oceans in time of peace.

[specsaregood]

The "standing army" we have in place now is not the military and members of our branches of the armed forces.

It is our local police forces, FBI, BATF, DEA, etc. Those are the ones that are a true threat to our freedoms.

[dude58677]

The "standing army" we have in place now is not the military and members of our branches of the armed forces.

It is our local police forces, FBI, BATF, DEA, etc. Those are the ones that are a true threat to our freedoms.

Granted, but having troops in Iraq isn't a threat to our freedoms?

[mediahasyou]

In market anarchism, no one would pay for a standing army. Collectively, however, people may pay for the biggest bang for their buck: nukes.

With a few nuclear bombs in your arsenal, even the biggest countries will be afraid to touch you.

[specsaregood]

Granted, but having troops in Iraq isn't a threat to our freedoms?

I take it, you think it is? How so? I don't see them patrolling my streets. The local police force on the other hand....

[Kludge]

In market anarchism, no one would pay for a standing army. Collectively, however, people may pay for the biggest bang for their buck: nukes.

With a few nuclear bombs in your arsenal, even the biggest countries will be afraid to touch you.

If I got hold of a nuke, I'd definitely be paying for a standing army to protect it while I demand tribute from those a good distance away from me.

[dude58677]

In market anarchism, no one would pay for a standing army. Collectively, however, people may pay for the biggest bang for their buck: nukes.

With a few nuclear bombs in your arsenal, even the biggest countries will be afraid to touch you.

The founding fathers were actually against standing armies esp in times of peace, and the last line of defense was supposed to be the individual right to bear arms. A large standing army in times of peace is unconstitutional so there doesn't even need to be be market anarchism for it to be abolished. It is unconstitutional, unAmerican, and uneeded.

[dude58677]

I take it, you think it is? How so? I don't see them patrolling my streets. The local police force on the other hand....

It leads to blowback which threatens our freedom to live. When there is no standing army then there is no blowback.

Finally, it costs money and without one no one will be saying "you must pay your fair share for the army" because there wouldn't be one. And we will start to embrace the second amendment more as more private militia's will be created to defend the homeland.

[jkr]

me!

[BudhaStalin]

It's a tough question... on the one hand we have the illusion that we need it because of the growth of such standing armies over the past 100 years, and on the other we also have that it is unconstitutional to to have standing armies.

Ideally, we wouldn't have such a widespread military imposing their will on foreign countries...

[specsaregood]

It leads to blowback which threatens our freedom to live. When there is no standing army then there is no blowback.


But blowback is not a direct threat FROM our military. It is by definition: "unintended consequences". The threat from blowback is from our enemies actions.

Mind you, I'm not supporting american military imperialism. But I don't think our current armed forces are the "standing army" that we were warned about. I think it was our domestic police forces that they had in mind.

[dude58677]

But blowback is not a direct threat FROM our military. It is by definition: "unintended consequences". The threat from blowback is from our enemies actions.

Mind you, I'm not supporting american military imperialism. But I don't think our current armed forces are the "standing army" that we were warned about. I think it was our domestic police forces that they had in mind.

A standing army leads to imperialism and that leads to blowback. It also makes people dependent on it for security. When epople think of defending America they first think of joining the military instead of starting a militia or joining one.

[klamath]

Where in the constitution does it say there shall be no standing army?

[dr. hfn]

aye

[dude58677]

Where in the constitution does it say there shall be no standing army?

The second amendment makes it unneeded, it violates the NINTH AMENDMENT as we have a right not to have our lives threatened by an imperialist army and in all State Constutions, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and founding father writings all discourage standing armies.


They only intended a small army during war time with the armed populace being the line of defense.

[specsaregood]

A standing army leads to imperialism and that leads to blowback. It also makes people dependent on it for security. When epople think of defending America they first think of joining the military instead of starting a militia or joining one.

I think a citizens militia would work very effectively against invasion or troops on our ground. However I do not think they would be effective against a foreign attacker who's sole purpose is to destroy us (not invade). Ie: protection against missles, bombers, etc.

From the people I have known, I would more often classify members of our armed forces as patriots vs members of our police forces. In fact I could contemplate a scenario where our armed forces we called in to protect us FROM our police forces.

[klamath]

The second amendment makes it unneeded, it violates the NINTH AMENDMENT as we have a right not to have our lives threatened by an imperialist army and in all State Constutions, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Declaration of Independence, and founding father writings all discourage standing armies.


They only intended a small army during war time with the armed populace being the line of defense.

Congress shall have the power.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


And since I am not an anarchist my answer is no to the thread question.
With the speed of modern warfare the militia would be unable to stop an invasion.
Playing paintball wars isn't effective training:rolleyes:

[Stary Hickory]

I would vote to abolish it, have a voluntary army of sorts. That is on standby.

[sratiug]

Where in the constitution does it say there shall be no standing army?

Article I Section 8




Congress shall have the power...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...

Notice the difference between armies and the navy.

[klamath]

Article I Section 8



Notice the difference between armies and the navy.

Quite well, but a standing army is not prohibited by the constitution as people have implied.

Too those that think this is a good idea, that aren't anarchists who don't give a Damn about a constitutional republic anyhow, how many have personally experienced modern warfare in combat arms or close support units?

[dude58677]

Quite well, but a standing army is not prohibited by the constitution as people have implied.

Too those that think this is a good idea, that aren't anarchists who don't give a Damn about a constitutional republic anyhow, how many have personally experienced modern warfare in combat arms or close support units?


The ninth amendment "The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

Translation: The rights listed under the Bill of Rights are not the only rights the people have. One of these unlisted rights is to not to have rights threatened by standing army such as blowback, martial law, conscription, etc.

"Protecting the States from invasion"

Read the Militia Act of 1792 and read it very carefully.

"Paintball:rolleyes:"

The second amendment does apply that the people can buy machine guns and they are legal and yes you can buy them in stores, this includes a MG-42 as well night vision goggles.

"People can't stop a missile or bomb"

I didn't say get rid of the Navy, only the army.

[CUnknown]

Getting rid of it isn't necessary imo, but reducing it to a reasonable size is very important. Perhaps 1/5 the size it is now.

[heavenlyboy34]

OP-I agree. Demolish the military industrial complex and bring forth private security companies! W00t! :)

[Bman]

One may wish for the Utopia of a perfect world. One may work for a path to a perfect world.

It is certainly a good idea to bring our troops home from foreign countries and then reduce the size to a defensive force. That would be where I stand. The threat of invasion is still very real. We've proved it oursleves.

There's two things I will accept the federal government spending money and using resources. A military built for defense is one of the two.

[sratiug]

Quite well, but a standing army is not prohibited by the constitution as people have implied.

Too those that think this is a good idea, that aren't anarchists who don't give a Damn about a constitutional republic anyhow, how many have personally experienced modern warfare in combat arms or close support units?

What would be the purpose of the standing army? The militia is there to repel invasions. It should be well equipped and trained. Maybe we can start a chip in to buy some F22's for the militia.

We all know, or should know, that even our current military is virtually worthless in the face of an all out nuclear first strike by Russia.

[t0rnado]

In market anarchism, no one would pay for a standing army. Collectively, however, people may pay for the biggest bang for their buck: nukes.

With a few nuclear bombs in your arsenal, even the biggest countries will be afraid to touch you.

And who decides when to launch the nukes? Who decides whether or not the nukes will be launched? Anarchy just turns into a collectivist democracy in that scenario.

If we want true freedom then there can't be any standing armies. Why does someone in Idaho have to pay for a defense system that would protect NYC? The fact that NYC and Idaho fit into the same imaginary lines called a county doesn't mean that someone in Idaho is essentially threatened by an invasion in NYC. All property should be private and it should be the responsibility of the owner to defend it.

[CUnknown]

If we want true freedom then there can't be any standing armies. Why does someone in Idaho have to pay for a defense system that would protect NYC?.

Because we are all part of the same country and we unite for the common defense. It sounds like you are talking about abolishing the country as one unit. Now, if people want to secede, I would respect that, but you can't withdraw from the common defense and still consider yourself part of the same country.

If another country attacks NYC, you'd say to yourself "None of my business"? WTF?

[dude58677]

One may wish for the Utopia of a perfect world. One may work for a path to a perfect world.

It is certainly a good idea to bring our troops home from foreign countries and then reduce the size to a defensive force. That would be where I stand. The threat of invasion is still very real. We've proved it oursleves.

There's two things I will accept the federal government spending money and using resources. A military built for defense is one of the two.

The threat of invasion may or may not be real but an armed populace is the one to repel the invasion. The founders intended for their to be a small army during war time that is appropiated for two years with the armed populace defending the homeland.

If Cuba invaded us or North Korea, we would have a small army fighting the North Koreans on our homeland with appropiations for the army lasting two years but the armed populace would be mostly be the ones defending America.


The Navy is allowed to exist in time of peace to prevent incoming missiles and to prevent Pearl Harbor attacks.

[GunnyFreedom]

I have a plan to do this.

It's a militia bill designed to establish a Volunteer Militia Post in every county in the US, and align it with the volunteer fire department and the county first responders.

Openly invite "every able bodied citizen to visit 24/7"

Officially "volunteering" entitles the citizen to a franchise (vote) on the chain of command, the general board, and crucial policy questions.

dump 50% of DOD budget into the Volunteer Militia program.

Allow DOD Primary (the standing army) to restore some of their budget by providing equipment, base access, and training for a cost to the funded free militia.

Monitor militia readiness, and when a county state and continental militia system becomes sufficient in numbers to provide emergency manpower during a full shift to war footing, begin transitioning the standing army into two roles.

FIRST develop a large and operational force structure posited around full militia manpower, half militia manpower, some militia support, and no militia support. Create scalar units, a "platoon" consisting of only the platoon captain, the platoon sergeant, and squad leaders. ie, "an army of 10 pretending to be an army of 1000" maintaining SYSTEMIC READINESS for an influx of battle-ready militia troops in case of traumatic national attack. MAINTAIN fully staffed, equipped, and augmented spearhead divisions for a first responder role. SLOWLY REDUCE the balance of (standing army) forces to zero. Do not decommission units, rather make them skeleton units, ready to receive mass volunteers should a war occur.

SECOND establish ALL-service DOD training and support commands for the militia. Take the elite of the elite from every job in every branch of the service, place them under a single, joint command, and task them with turning out militia students better than themselves, from training facilities nationwide.

Eventually, the manpower strength of the official "Standing Army" will reduce to approx 1/5 of current size, while our military readiness for both rapid and long term threats will increase. Domestic defense against invasion or imported jihadist insurgence will be the most greatly impacted, by training every American citizen how to handle a combat rifle, and how to use it appropriately in case of a terrorist attack. We will have achieved Admiral Yamamoto's fear of "a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Within 10 years, this should reduce our overall defense budget by half, while actually INCREASING American military responsiveness and readiness to threats.

[dude58677]

I have a plan to do this.

It's a militia bill designed to establish a Volunteer Militia Post in every county in the US, and align it with the volunteer fire department and the county first responders.

Openly invite "every able bodied citizen to visit 24/7"

Officially "volunteering" entitles the citizen to a franchise (vote) on the chain of command, the general board, and crucial policy questions.

dump 50% of DOD budget into the Volunteer Militia program.

Allow DOD Primary (the standing army) to restore some of their budget by providing equipment, base access, and training for a cost to the funded free militia.

Monitor militia readiness, and when a county state and continental militia system becomes sufficient in numbers to provide emergency manpower during a full shift to war footing, begin transitioning the standing army into two roles.

FIRST develop a large and operational force structure posited around full militia manpower, half militia manpower, some militia support, and no militia support. Create scalar units, a "platoon" consisting of only the platoon captain, the platoon sergeant, and squad leaders. ie, "an army of 10 pretending to be an army of 1000" maintaining SYSTEMIC READINESS for an influx of battle-ready militia troops in case of traumatic national attack. MAINTAIN fully staffed, equipped, and augmented spearhead divisions for a first responder role. SLOWLY REDUCE the balance of (standing army) forces to zero. Do not decommission units, rather make them skeleton units, ready to receive mass volunteers should a war occur.

SECOND establish ALL-service DOD training and support commands for the militia. Take the elite of the elite from every job in every branch of the service, place them under a single, joint command, and task them with turning out militia students better than themselves, from training facilities nationwide.

Eventually, the manpower strength of the official "Standing Army" will reduce to approx 1/5 of current size, while our military readiness for both rapid and long term threats will increase. Domestic defense against invasion or imported jihadist insurgence will be the most greatly impacted, by training every American citizen how to handle a combat rifle, and how to use it appropriately in case of a terrorist attack. We will have achieved Admiral Yamamoto's fear of "a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Within 10 years, this should reduce our overall defense budget by half, while actually INCREASING American military responsiveness and readiness to threats.

Sounds good!:)

[t0rnado]

Because we are all part of the same country and we unite for the common defense. It sounds like you are talking about abolishing the country as one unit. Now, if people want to secede, I would respect that, but you can't withdraw from the common defense and still consider yourself part of the same country.

If another country attacks NYC, you'd say to yourself "None of my business"? WTF?

I just don't think that the federal government should have any military force. Let's say someone one mile south of Texas gets shot, is it any of our business? Let's say someone one mile north of the Texas/Mexico border gets shot, is it any of our business. Imaginary boundaries aren't good ways of determining whether something has an affect on us. A country is just a piece of land with imaginary borders. If another country attacks NYC, I'd be pissed off, but I wouldn't use someone else's money to fight against the other country.

[ChaosControl]

I think the army should be volunteers who train together say monthly, rather than any full time profession. A militia that can then be called up in times of emergency to defend the nation.

So yes, we should abolish the standing army.

[powerofreason]

If I got hold of a nuke, I'd definitely be paying for a standing army to protect it while I demand tribute from those a good distance away from me.

Lol with what money?

[klamath]

I have a plan to do this.

It's a militia bill designed to establish a Volunteer Militia Post in every county in the US, and align it with the volunteer fire department and the county first responders.

Openly invite "every able bodied citizen to visit 24/7"

Officially "volunteering" entitles the citizen to a franchise (vote) on the chain of command, the general board, and crucial policy questions.

dump 50% of DOD budget into the Volunteer Militia program.

Allow DOD Primary (the standing army) to restore some of their budget by providing equipment, base access, and training for a cost to the funded free militia.

Monitor militia readiness, and when a county state and continental militia system becomes sufficient in numbers to provide emergency manpower during a full shift to war footing, begin transitioning the standing army into two roles.

FIRST develop a large and operational force structure posited around full militia manpower, half militia manpower, some militia support, and no militia support. Create scalar units, a "platoon" consisting of only the platoon captain, the platoon sergeant, and squad leaders. ie, "an army of 10 pretending to be an army of 1000" maintaining SYSTEMIC READINESS for an influx of battle-ready militia troops in case of traumatic national attack. MAINTAIN fully staffed, equipped, and augmented spearhead divisions for a first responder role. SLOWLY REDUCE the balance of (standing army) forces to zero. Do not decommission units, rather make them skeleton units, ready to receive mass volunteers should a war occur.

SECOND establish ALL-service DOD training and support commands for the militia. Take the elite of the elite from every job in every branch of the service, place them under a single, joint command, and task them with turning out militia students better than themselves, from training facilities nationwide.

Eventually, the manpower strength of the official "Standing Army" will reduce to approx 1/5 of current size, while our military readiness for both rapid and long term threats will increase. Domestic defense against invasion or imported jihadist insurgence will be the most greatly impacted, by training every American citizen how to handle a combat rifle, and how to use it appropriately in case of a terrorist attack. We will have achieved Admiral Yamamoto's fear of "a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Within 10 years, this should reduce our overall defense budget by half, while actually INCREASING American military responsiveness and readiness to threats.

Nice to see you back to bring some level headedness to the forum, Gunny.
Another thing I noticed in the constitution that is very specific was a person had to obtain the age of 37 before being put in charge of defending the country. I think they were on to something there.

[jkm1864]

I don't think We should abolish it I think We should go to a peace time military. I think We need to keep our pilots and our tank crews. I think We should also have a infantry force for defense and officers that can train the militia in times of need. I believe every man should be a rifleman in this country and should come forward in a time of need if the cause is just. Now would I come forward? I wouldn't come forward with these psychos running the show but if We went to a Libertarian society where my property rights were respected then I'd jump up in a heart beat....



Hey maybe We should tax the anti gun people to support the military and give the people a tax break if the join a militia and allow themselves to be called forth by their governor.

[klamath]

What would be the purpose of the standing army? The militia is there to repel invasions. It should be well equipped and trained. Maybe we can start a chip in to buy some F22's for the militia.

We all know, or should know, that even our current military is virtually worthless in the face of an all out nuclear first strike by Russia.

You are talking to someone that has spent 20 year in the national guard. A total reserve army won't cut it. Very few national guard combat units are ready to go to combat on a moments notice I been around militias too and for the most part they are a complete laughable joke of a fighting force. Any invading army would take casualties from a militia but a militia would never stop a modern trained army from taking all infrastructure and production centers. After that point is would be bitter guerilla warfare that could take centuries to reclaim the country or never.

However Gunny's point about reducing the size of the standing army is very good indeed. We need several highly trained active divisions that can deploy and engage an enemy attack so reserve units can be activated and trained to reenforce.

[dude58677]

"A reserve army just won't cut it"

We are not talking aboiut a reserve army, we are talking about 100 million gun owners who have a cause to fight. They are not doing it for financial gain or a way to pay for college. They are also able to use machine guns and night vision goggles.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks Klamath!

That is exactly the "meat and potatoes" of my plan, maintain a standing force in readiness as an emergency buffer for the training and equipping of men; and focus on a highly trained militia that will take to training and equipment very quickly.

If we really want to reduce the size of the DOD while maintaining or increasing our readiness and responsiveness to threats, the sort of hybrid plan I mentioned I think would be the best bet.

[GunnyFreedom]

"A reserve army just won't cut it"

We are not talking aboiut a reserve army, we are talking about 100 million gun owners who have a cause to fight. They are not doing it for financial gain or a way to pay for college. They are also able to use machine guns and night vision goggles.

a corpse with NVG's and a machine gun is just a very well dressed corpse. Equipment alone will not cut it. at some point at some level there will need to be an active hair trigger 24/7 force in readiness, however you go about doing it.

My plan cuts the active forces down to an extraordinarily elite 1/5 of it's current size, and provides for both rapid skilled immediate response plus long term wartime endurance.

FURTHER, it allows more individual liberty in wartime, by contracting soldiers as freemen, if the war becomes unpopular and the soldiers stop coming to fight, then the war ends, whether the President likes it or not.

[John E]

"A reserve army just won't cut it"

We are not talking aboiut a reserve army, we are talking about 100 million gun owners who have a cause to fight. They are not doing it for financial gain or a way to pay for college. They are also able to use machine guns and night vision goggles.


I don't think those gun owners are going to be able to take out missiles or the bombers dropping them and its going to take more than a crash course to teach them how to fly our fighters - or more importantly, give them the flight time and experience they need to fight back successfully.

I think we meddle too much in international affairs but having the firepower to level a country flat and the troops available to eliminate their entire culture off the face of the earth tends to keep most of these countries at the negotiation table.

[Philmanoman]

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/

Thought some of these quotes were interesting.I didnt look them up to make sure theyre correct.There is a bit more at the link above.



Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154






What, then, can be learned from this? That standing armies are a threat to liberty. It is through standing armies that the people are enslaved. Right now it is not overt, but a covert enslavement. Our money is squandered and spent all over the globe protecting not ourselves, but the interests of various international bankers and large corporate elite who are opposed to the free market way of doing things.

Luckily for us, this is all that has happened with our standing army. We have not yet had the right person come along to use our army to steal our freedom from us. But it will happen, it is inevitable. We only need a Bonaparte to come along.

[IPSecure]

At least, scale it back a little...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Clandestine_Service

[dude58677]

I don't think those gun owners are going to be able to take out missiles or the bombers dropping them and its going to take more than a crash course to teach them how to fly our fighters - or more importantly, give them the flight time and experience they need to fight back successfully.

I think we meddle too much in international affairs but having the firepower to level a country flat and the troops available to eliminate their entire culture off the face of the earth tends to keep most of these countries at the negotiation table.

Against that is why we have a NAVY and I aso said that when the country is not being invaded we do not need an army. We might need a small one during invasion.

[klamath]

"A reserve army just won't cut it"

We are not talking aboiut a reserve army, we are talking about 100 million gun owners who have a cause to fight. They are not doing it for financial gain or a way to pay for college. They are also able to use machine guns and night vision goggles.

A hundred million guns pointed in a hundred million directions. Manpower and guns don't win wars. Logistics, comand and control and high training wins wars.
Machine guns and NVGs:D:D
Sounds like someone hasn't spent any time in combat arms.

[torchbearer]

the federal government was never intended to have a standing army except in times of war.the rest was left to the states.

[klamath]

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/05/27/the-congress-holds-the-war-powers/

Thought some of these quotes were interesting.I didnt look them up to make sure theyre correct.There is a bit more at the link above.



Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).



President James Madison: “…to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;… to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;…” – President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.



James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154






What, then, can be learned from this? That standing armies are a threat to liberty. It is through standing armies that the people are enslaved. Right now it is not overt, but a covert enslavement. Our money is squandered and spent all over the globe protecting not ourselves, but the interests of various international bankers and large corporate elite who are opposed to the free market way of doing things.

Luckily for us, this is all that has happened with our standing army. We have not yet had the right person come along to use our army to steal our freedom from us. But it will happen, it is inevitable. We only need a Bonaparte to come along.

And one of the reasons we had to call the French in to win our independence.

[sratiug]

You are talking to someone that has spent 20 year in the national guard. A total reserve army won't cut it. Very few national guard combat units are ready to go to combat on a moments notice I been around militias too and for the most part they are a complete laughable joke of a fighting force. Any invading army would take casualties from a militia but a militia would never stop a modern trained army from taking all infrastructure and production centers. After that point is would be bitter guerilla warfare that could take centuries to reclaim the country or never.

However Gunny's point about reducing the size of the standing army is very good indeed. We need several highly trained active divisions that can deploy and engage an enemy attack so reserve units can be activated and trained to reenforce.

Please explain how we would presently defend against a Russian nuclear first strike. Isn't invasion of the US from any other source beside Russia or possibly China absolutely impossible considering our nuclear arsenal, Navy, and air force?

[dude58677]

A hundred million guns pointed in a hundred million directions. Manpower and guns don't win wars. Logistics, comand and control and high training wins wars.
Machine guns and NVGs:D:D
Sounds like someone hasn't spent any time in combat arms.

I guess you are not a true believer in the individual right to bear arms under the second amendment nor do you believe in private enterprise. Either you believe in it or you do not.


You don't think that if a foreign army were to invade your local town, the town wouldn't assemble and fight?

We lost both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War because of a guerilla fight.



DID YOU READ THE MILITIA ACT OF 1792 LIKE I ASKED YOU TO?

[klamath]

Please explain how we would presently defend against a Russian nuclear first strike. Isn't invasion of the US from any other source beside Russia or possibly China absolutely impossible considering our nuclear arsenal, Navy, and air force?

What authorizes our Airforce? What authorizes our nuclear program?

Nuclear is a real deterent to attackers but in future years a limited nuclear war followed by a land invasion is a possibility. China may in the near future be the technological and economic leader of the world and turn emperial.

A land invasion is not impossible. An airborne strike against mainland US would be very possible.

[klamath]

I guess you are not a true believer in the individual right to bear arms under the second amendment nor do you believe in private enterprise. Either you believe in it or you do not.


You don't think that if a foreign army were to invade your local town, the town wouldn't assemble and fight?

We lost both the Vietnam War and the Iraq War because of a guerilla fight.



DID YOU READ THE MILITIA ACT OF 1792 LIKE I ASKED YOU TO?

This is where you make a very big miscalculation. An invading army that didn't care about civilian casualies and only wanted land (China) would have no problem wining a war.
If the US really was fighting an all out war without any concern for world opinion and death every man women and child would be dead in Iraq and Vietnam without even resorting to nukes. Besides all you read in leftist and anti war sites the US military is not indiscriminately killing everthing that moves in Iraq. If that was the case it would have been a devoid lifeless place 6 years ago. The phase that the US army was beaten by the guerillas is a false hope. The guerillas weren't crushed because in our hearts we knew we were wrong even being there and wouldn't fight to the finish. I for one don't want my grandkids being the ones sneaking out planting IEDs on our own soil to harm an occupying army.
No I didn't read the militia act because my argument is the nuts and bolts of surviving a war in the modern world.

[sratiug]

What authorizes our Airforce? What authorizes our nuclear program?

Nuclear is a real deterent to attackers but in future years a limited nuclear war followed by a land invasion is a possibility. China may in the near future be the technological and economic leader of the world and turn emperial.

A land invasion is not impossible. An airborne strike against mainland US would be very possible.

So you admit we have no defence now against a Russian nuclear first strike, except the MAD doctrine?

[Scofield]

What authorizes our Airforce? What authorizes our nuclear program?

Nuclear is a real deterent to attackers but in future years a limited nuclear war followed by a land invasion is a possibility. China may in the near future be the technological and economic leader of the world and turn emperial.

A land invasion is not impossible. An airborne strike against mainland US would be very possible.

Yes, it is impossible.

I dare any country to try and invade the continental United States. They could take over Hawaii and maybe Alaska, but there isn't a chance in Hell a country could successfully invade the 'States.

It would be impossible for a country to get its fleet past our navy, and if they did, they would be greeted with 350million American defenders. The only way to get into the United States with their troops/tanks/etc.. is to go through Mexico or Canada. And neither Mexico, nor Canada, would allow for a foreign nation to dock on their soil, for the purpose of marching through their country to reach the United States. Any invading nation would have to take out Canada or Mexico first, then the United States...NEVER going to happen.

You are simply delusional if you think the United States is capable of being invaded and taken over. Absolutely delusional.

[dude58677]

This is where you make a very big miscalculation. An invading army that didn't care about civilian casualies and only wanted land (China) would have no problem wining a war.
If the US really was fighting an all out war without any concern for world opinion and death every man women and child would be dead in Iraq and Vietnam without even resorting to nukes. Besides all you read in leftist and anti war sites the US military is not indiscriminately killing everthing that moves in Iraq. If that was the case it would have been a devoid lifeless place 6 years ago. The phase that the US army was beaten by the guerillas is a false hope. The guerillas weren't crushed because in our hearts we knew we were wrong even being there and wouldn't fight to the finish. I for one don't want my grandkids being the ones sneaking out planting IEDs on our own soil to harm an occupying army.
No I didn't read the militia act because my argument is the nuts and bolts of surviving a war in the modern world.

It is not about civilian casualties, it is about a foreign army occupying our country and imposing their will on us. We would stand up and fight.

[mport1]

Yep, get rid of the standing army and how about the whole government while we're at it.

[klamath]

Yes, it is impossible.

I dare any country to try and invade the continental United States. They could take over Hawaii and maybe Alaska, but there isn't a chance in Hell a country could successfully invade the 'States.

It would be impossible for a country to get its fleet past our navy, and if they did, they would be greeted with 350million American defenders. The only way to get into the United States with their troops/tanks/etc.. is to go through Mexico or Canada. And neither Mexico, nor Canada, would allow for a foreign nation to dock on their soil, for the purpose of marching through their country to reach the United States. Any invading nation would have to take out Canada or Mexico first, then the United States...NEVER going to happen.

You are simply delusional if you think the United States is capable of being invaded and taken over. Absolutely delusional.

You're delusional.

[klamath]

It is not about civilian casualties, it is about a foreign army occupying our country and imposing their will on us. We would stand up and fight.

No question of whether we would stand up and fight. It is whether we could stand up and win is what I am looking for.
In the first gulf war the Iraqis had a million man army with very short supply lines. 200,000 combat troops with a 9000 mile supply line crushed them in days.

[dude58677]

No question of whether we would stand up and fight. It is whether we could stand up and win is what I am looking for.
In the first gulf war the Iraqis had a million man army with very short supply lines. 200,000 combat troops with a 9000 mile supply line crushed them in days.

1) There is a big difference between 1 million and 100 million.

2) The US was fighting a conscripted army and conscripted armies have very low morale.

3) The one million people had one cammand center so if that command center told them to stop fighting, they would.

4) With a high morale and a thousand different command centers, the fighting would be relentless from an armed populace.

5) Militia's use peer review for training methods given that there is no one size fits all under a single command center as that of a army.

6) The Militia Act of 1792 called for States to call up militia's and train them for combat when that State is being is in danger of being invaded or is invaded. You didn't read this so you wouldn't know.

7) For the 500th time, I said ONLY to abolish armies during PEACETIME. It is during an invasion that a small army would be recruited.

8) I did say the Navy would be maintained for the 500th time.

9) If you want troops in every country around the world suring peacetime in America then pass an amendment.

10) In the plans of the Founders if the nation suffered an invasion the standing Army (limited by law to fewer than 1000 men) would proceed to the area of the foreign incursion and join with the local militia. The professional soldiers would form the core of the fighting force which would repel the invasion. This is why there were laws on the books which required all men to own and maintain in working order at least one musket, a bayonet and a minimum amount of powder and shot.What part of this don't you understand?


What part of this don't you understand?

[Scofield]

You're delusional.

Is that all you can muster to respond with?

Are you going to at least try and counter my argument?

[klamath]

1) There is a big difference between 1 million and 100 million.

There is a difference between 100 million and 1.5 Billion

2) The US was fighting a conscripted army and conscripted armies have very low morale.
They had low morale because they had the living sh*t kicked out of them. The Iraqi republican guard were quit elite proud units.

3) The one million people had one cammand center so if that command center told them to stop fighting, they would.
Many command and control centers is the quickest way to lose a war.

4) With a high morale and a thousand different command centers, the fighting would be relentless from an armed populace.
Being starved to death and no real way to resupply, morale will fail.

5) Militia's use peer review for training methods given that there is no one size fits all under a single command center as that of a army.
Like I have said before. I have seen militias and they are a joke.

6) The Militia Act of 1792 called for States to call up militia's and train them for combat when that State is being is in danger of being invaded or is invaded. You didn't read this so you wouldn't know.
What the founding fathers didn't count on was the ability of a foreign power delivering 40,000 to 400,000 airborne troops in 12 hours.

7) For the 500th time, I said ONLY to abolish armies during PEACETIME. It is during an invasion that a small army would be recruited.
And for the 500th time in modern warfare you don't have time to mobilize and top off the training or all of your troops.

8) I did say the Navy would be maintained for the 500th time.
The navy has its place but during an inland battle they are pretty much out of the picture, like in Iraq.
9) If you want troops in every country around the world suring peacetime in America then pass an amendment.
I never said I wanted troops around the world. I think they all should be brought home and the number reduced significantly but not ALL the way.

10) In the plans of the Founders if the nation suffered an invasion the standing Army (limited by law to fewer than 1000 men) would proceed to the area of the foreign incursion and join with the local militia. The professional soldiers would form the core of the fighting force which would repel the invasion. This is why there were laws on the books which required all men to own and maintain in working order at least one musket, a bayonet and a minimum amount of powder and shot. What part of this don't you understand?
A thousand men did fine 230 years ago with the speed of warfare of that time.
The militia and reserve could be a fine fighting force if they are given enough time to train and come up to speed. Elite forces train nearly year around which is why it takes a reserve unit 6 to 10 months of active training before they deploy to war.
Even the reserve WWII combat veterans they called up for the Korean war had to be retrained for a period of time.


What part of this don't you understand?

And what part of what I am say don't you understand? Maybe we should just quit:D

[dude58677]

And what part of what I am say don't you understand? Maybe we should just quit:D

So you don't think there should be a private militia training peer-review journal?

[UnReconstructed]

let's abolish all slavery

[LibertyEagle]

let's abolish all slavery

When people willingly signup with a branch of the military, it is not slavery.

[klamath]

So you don't think there should be a private militia training peer-review journal?

No I don't have a problem with it. I just don't think we should put all of our land defence in the hands of the militia.

[sratiug]

Hey Klamath, which countries are able to land hundreds of thousands of airborn troops here without us seeing it coming and shooting them all down?

[klamath]

Hey Klamath, which countries are able to land hundreds of thousands of airborn troops here without us seeing it coming and shooting them all down?
At the moment none but China and Russia could very quickly put this ability together. Though not very likely India could do so as well.

[mczerone]

As long as individuals may freely form private militias, sure.

Even being what some people here deride as an "anarchist," I can still see that its better to have the corrupt, bloated, inefficient government monopoly form of a service than not being allowed to have that service at all.

[mczerone]

When people willingly signup with a branch of the military, it is not slavery.

Can they leave without being either forcibly returned or killed? Can servicemen form a Union to battle unfair labor contracts? Are the wage and benefits they do receive comparable to voluntary employment, or might they be working for "slave wages" of pennies on the thousand dollar versus their Private Contractor counterparts?

Even the most strict of voluntary private contracts allow the serviceman to walk away, possibly subject to non-complete clauses within his industry.

Further, the implied threat of a draft is always hung over the youth of the nation: if the collective populous doesn't "volunteer" at a satisfactory rate, they'll have to either spend your money to ramp up the propaganda and incentives machines or forcibly enlist you or your children to fight their wars.

But maybe you're right, and indentured servitude wasn't/isn't slavery either.

[sratiug]

At the moment none but China and Russia could very quickly put this ability together. Though not very likely India could do so as well.

Would it not be far easier and just as safe for them to nuke us all to hell?

[dude58677]

Can they leave without being either forcibly returned or killed? Can servicemen form a Union to battle unfair labor contracts? Are the wage and benefits they do receive comparable to voluntary employment, or might they be working for "slave wages" of pennies on the thousand dollar versus their Private Contractor counterparts?

Even the most strict of voluntary private contracts allow the serviceman to walk away, possibly subject to non-complete clauses within his industry.

Further, the implied threat of a draft is always hung over the youth of the nation: if the collective populous doesn't "volunteer" at a satisfactory rate, they'll have to either spend your money to ramp up the propaganda and incentives machines or forcibly enlist you or your children to fight their wars.

But maybe you're right, and indentured servitude wasn't/isn't slavery either.

Agree!
YouTube - Bus Arrives and Yellow Footprints Begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhFTEb_QHKQ&feature=related)


YouTube - Yellow Footprints, Marine Recruits Line Up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOCxxHQJYY)

YouTube - Rules and Red Boxes, Marine Recruits Intake (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O8lF3vsclM&feature=related)

YouTube - Rules and Red Boxes, Marine Recruits Intake (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1AHx7zMyjo&feature=related)

YouTube - Marine Recruits Calling Home Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs4sMA7Urkw&feature=related)

[klamath]

Would it not be far easier and just as safe for them to nuke us all to hell?

Not if they wanted to move their over population on to radioactive land.

[Scofield]

Why anyone would want to join the Military is beyond me.

I don't tolerate people screaming at me. I wouldn't last a second in the Military, as I'd either be thrown in military prison for assaulting an officer or for going AWOL within the first five minutes.

[dude58677]

Why anyone would want to join the Military is beyond me.

I don't tolerate people screaming at me. I wouldn't last a second in the Military, as I'd either be thrown in military prison for assaulting an officer or for going AWOL within the first five minutes.

Exactly. With the citizen militia, you get the best of both worlds. Not only are you defending yourself and your family, but you live a life outside the militia which never happens in the military. You can spend time with militia training but you don't have to and you can train at your own pace with your own style and motivation. If you join a militia group and you don't them getting into foolish missions or their training style doesn't work you can quit and form your own, join another one, or do it by yourself. Last, you are not costing your community any tax dollars.

[free.alive]

End standing armies?

Sure, but even the discussion is irrelevant. I'm an/cap, but I also play in Republican politics. If that doesn't make sense to you, then go back to your science fiction novel.

And no, I don't really want to stifle theoretical discussions, but I wish more of us were using our creativity and imaginations to come up with policy solutions that both move the ball more in our court, and can appeal to regular people who may know nothing of libertarianism.

What can we do regarding bread and butter issues? What are those issues? What's the political strategy - political party and electoral politics; initiatives and referendums; targeting and electing judges; lawsuits; mass actions; media campaigns?

Power. We need to seize some of it. To change the political structure (or, eventually, end the political structure) we're going to have to seize power and influence in the political structure.

Feel free to disagree with me - just know you either live in a fantasy world, or you're not serious.

[dude58677]

End standing armies?

Sure, but even the discussion is irrelevant. I'm an/cap, but I also play in Republican politics. If that doesn't make sense to you, then go back to your science fiction novel.

And no, I don't really want to stifle theoretical discussions, but I wish more of us were using our creativity and imaginations to come up with policy solutions that both move the ball more in our court, and can appeal to regular people who may know nothing of libertarianism.

What can we do regarding bread and butter issues? What are those issues? What's the political strategy - political party and electoral politics; initiatives and referendums; targeting and electing judges; lawsuits; mass actions; media campaigns?

Power. We need to seize some of it. To change the political structure (or, eventually, end the political structure) we're going to have to seize power and influence in the political structure.

Feel free to disagree with me - just know you either live in a fantasy world, or you're not serious.

I think it is a pretty straightforward discussion. We can just ask, why are we in Iraq when we have an armed populace defending the homeland? Once an answer is given, the debate begins.

[mediahasyou]

Why anyone would want to join the Military is beyond me.

A soldier joins the military for the same reasons that cause a person to become a paid assassin.

...or they are a victim of nationalist propaganda.

[sratiug]

Not if they wanted to move their over population on to radioactive land.

Their home country would be a radioactive wasteland as soon as they tried to invade. Or do you believe they can disable our nuclear arsenal with a couple of commandos?

[NYgs23]

There were no standing armies in the Western world before about the 17th century, I think. It seems to me to be like any other military development, be it guns, bombs, tanks, planes, stratagems. One factions invents it first and then everyone has to grab it to remain competitive. War is the driving engine for all military developments. I suppose if there had been no wars for the past 1500 years, we would still be using Medieval-type weaponry.