steveh_131
Grandmaster
There are not a whole lot of leftwingers in the ranks.
I have concerns about tyranny coming from either 'winger'.
There are not a whole lot of leftwingers in the ranks.
Are you familiar with the "America First"ers? Where do you think we would be if we had followed Lucky Lindy's lead?
No-one in government is talking about gutting the military, only lending some sanity to the numbers and moving them from the cold war paradigm that they've been stuck in. .
NK nuclear capable missiles getting caught trying to pass through the Panama canal , the Chinese fielding a "blue water" navy with nuclear capable subs , sending their spy ships into / near our waters , the Ruskies parking warships down in Cuba , having large scale war games and flying Black Jacks around the Caribbean from Nicaraguan air base wouldn't have anything to do with that "paradigm their stuck in " , would it ?
The " cold war " ain't no where near over yet .
[video=youtube;Yzpd0Yl44ZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzpd0Yl44ZE[/video]
The DoD budget could be reduced to zero and you would feel little to no difference in the government bleeding us dry. Fact is, entitlement spending is the elephant in the room. The Military Budget routinely is attacked as full of fat and corruption by those that want to ignore the real issue of wealth re-distribution. Want to stop the bleeding, make real cuts in entitlement spending.
Because we have been told that the Cold War is over does not mean the world is any less prone to conflict. Putin is working to restore Russia to Superpower Status. China is spending big on military growth with the intent of projecting power in the Pacific. Our 1.4 million boots on the ground would be dwarfed by a Chinese Army in the millions and growing. Further weakening the US Military is an open invitation for despots to start a fight. Refer to the lessons of History!
The Swiss can remain neutral and aloof precisely because of US Military Power. We bailed Europe out twice in the 20th Century. Also, there is little strategic value to Switzerland. Adopting a Swiss model of military service and firearm ownership as any kind of reasonable alternative is pure fantasy.
I have concerns about tyranny coming from either 'winger'.
I didn't make this a 'snark-fest'. I asked some pretty legitimate questions that have been ignored. Apparently quoting the founders made me unworthy of a real discussion.
I am able to separate their lack of morality from their political wisdom. They understood tyranny and they understood what sparked it and what enabled it. I value their opinions on that topic in particular.
The service members and ex-service members get their panties so twisted at the very thought of any cuts that they seem unable to carry on a reasonable discussion on the subject. And I'll reiterate that I'm actually fairly open-minded on the subject. I'll admit my lack of knowledge of some military matters and am willing to consider both sides, if anyone would present theirs in a way that isn't packed with sarcasm or logical fallacies.
My response to this thread—
is this thread, https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/334387-large-standing-army.html
The problem with how they're doing it in my eyes is that cutting pay and benefits for members is changing the government's side of a contract after you've completed your's. The civilian benefits commission is scheduled to present their recommendations for pay and medical cuts this spring. Most active duty and retired folks do get a little bent when there is serious talk of cutting the compensation package after they provided 20+ years of service being told they would earn them. The cuts they are proposing aren't just for the new folks who join after the change (as was how they implemented the cuts for the civil service people) but are retroactive. They will apply to us after we've fulfilled our part of the bargain.
From the article:
In case you didn't notice, we did sort of okay in WWII even though we didn't have a huge standing army already meddling in things that are none of our business.
The main reason we did as well as we did in WWII, we could out-produce every single country on the planet. Once the war machine started, there was no stopping it. Still think we could do the same now? NOPE!
He also didn't have to deal with 'assault rifles' with 30-round 'clips', but I still support his stance on the 2nd amendment.
I don't understand how you guys can discount their opinions based on technology when it comes to a standing army, but not when it comes to the 2nd amendment.
I'm not even saying that I necessarily advocate dismantling our entire standing army, but we could certainly trim it back some.
What?Plus if we get rid of the military then there is no reason that there should be personal firearms as the militia was to be part of the military.
What?
Think about what you're saying for a minute.
Why is it that we need multi billion dollar ships, 10s of million dollar aircraft and a million soldiers standing at the ready?
Who is this vague boogeyman we are supposed to be ready to fight all the time? And why would they want to go to war with us again?
Stop the standing army and go to a Swiss type system that has kept them free, neutral and mostly happy for almost 800 years. In fact Switzerland was one of the templates our Founders used when designing our governmental system. Decentralized government, a militia, and a neutral stance towards the BS in the rest of the world.
Sounds like just the ticket for a long and happy existence.
NK nuclear capable missiles getting caught trying to pass through the Panama canal , the Chinese fielding a "blue water" navy with nuclear capable subs , sending their spy ships into / near our waters , the Ruskies parking warships down in Cuba , having large scale war games and flying Black Jacks around the Caribbean from Nicaraguan air base wouldn't have anything to do with that "paradigm their stuck in " , would it ?
The " cold war " ain't no where near over yet .
The idea of the 2nd amendment was that instead of having a professional warrior class (military, and police, as the military was the police back then) that the whole of society would be trained to be warriors. Training would be at the local level where leaders would be appointed by the community. Often the most educated man in the community back then was the minister thus he was the leader. The local unit trained at least twice a year, often after church. The unit was also the sheriff's posse, the fire brigade (like our volunteer firemen) and served the community in other ways.
The Swiss had a similar system. The founders referred to Switzerland as our sister republic. Even today Switzerland has mandatory service in a reserve system. At one time the Swiss could brag of having a 15 million man army (do not think it is that large now). Big difference was that the Swiss have their military take their military weapons home with them. No armory thus less government control over military weapons.
It is not enough that we own weapons. We are not well trained as warriors. Very few are trained in hand to hand combat or the use of edged weapons. Very few Americans are competitive athletes. Too many baby themselves, are over weight and lack physical conditioning. Or are practiced in working in small teams.
We may not need a professional army. But we do need citizens who are warriors.