[Drlee]

Are you keeping in mind that the founders saw the federal constitution as only applying to the federal government? Application to state government action was a much later innovation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to see that the founders wanted the federal government to stay out of the business of prohibiting gun ownership while, at the same time, leaving the question of state regulations to the several states.

I don't grant your first point. It fails in light of the bill of rights, for example. Clearly there are rights and remedys that enjoin the states from absolute power to regulate their own citizens. There is nothing "late" about regulating the behavior of the states. I am always puzzled when I hear people say this. Do you not think that freedom of speech and the press were from the beginning designed to apply in full to the states? Maybe it would be well to take off your economic glasses for a moment and see the constitution as something more.

So having said that, I do not necessarily disagree with your point:

I think it is perfectly reasonable to see that the founders wanted the federal government to stay out of the business of prohibiting gun ownership while, at the same time, leaving the question of state regulations to the several states

I think the founders wanted "a well regulated militia". Further I believe they were self-limiting with the fear that a strong central government might prohibit the states from maintaining them. Thow clearly Jefferson believed that freeman should be allowed to keep and use army on their own property he most definately did not say "every man may own arms and carry them wherever they like". And Jefferson was not given to being obtuse. Had he meant that he would have said it.


So.

Over time the ownership of firearms has become enshrined in our social construct. The consitutional protection of militias has morphed into a personal right to own firearms and a reluctance for the central government to allow states to too closely limit this. (But not an absolute ban on a state's ability to control them.) My belief does not acknowledge that what the second amendment has become was original intent. Rather the opposite.

This is a dangerous analogy. You also have the right to forbid somebody standing on your land from criticising you. Would you suggest government should have the same right as regards property under its control?

I don't see this contridiction. Of course I can stop people from entering my land at all and so can/does the US government. For example people have no right to protest on military installations. As with all actions by the central government, it must show that its actions do not violate the constitution; in this case the assertion of an individuals right to free speech. Clearly the federal government HAS the right to prohibit protest in certain places, by certain people and in certain ways. BUT. The burden of proving to a federal court (or the people acting in Congress) that there is a compelling reason to do this falls on the governmental agency doing it. And the bar for this is very very high.

Left-wingers who propose gun control are class traitors. No left-winger worth his salt should ever call for disarming the working classes: In fact, they should argue for arming the working classes to the teeth.

You do realize that there are thinking people who find the notion that an armed populace constraining the government absurd? I am not one of them but I think that this line of reasoning is flawed. Clearly yours is. Why? Because you imagine the great unwashed rising up against a oppressive central government. A far more likely scenario is that the left wingers will take up arms against the right wingers and vice versa leaving the central government to sort it all out.

[KlassWar]

You do realize that there are thinking people who find the notion that an armed populace constraining the government absurd? I am not one of them but I think that this line of reasoning is flawed. Clearly yours is. Why? Because you imagine the great unwashed rising up against a oppressive central government. A far more likely scenario is that the left wingers will take up arms against the right wingers and vice versa leaving the central government to sort it all out.

Governments do fall. When the masses have access to weapons, they fall more often. A revolution by an armed proletariat is hard: A revolution by a disarmed proletariat is pretty much impossible. Clearly, consenting to disarmament is sentencing the masses to be as much at the mercy of the government as possible. From a reactionary, that's perfectly understandable: Monopolizing firepower is the name of their game.

From a Leftist, such a position is simply treasonous.

[Decky]

Governments do fall. When the masses have access to weapons, they fall more often. A revolution by an armed proletariat is hard: A revolution by a disarmed proletariat is pretty much impossible. Clearly, consenting to disarmament is sentencing the masses to be as much at the mercy of the government as possible. From a reactionary, that's perfectly understandable: Monopolizing firepower is the name of their game.

From a Leftist, such a position is simply treasonous.

Revolutions don't succeed when the workers rise up onto the Barricades and get slaughtered by the military. They succeed when the militarily itself comes over to the revolution. Building class conciseness in traditionally right wing areas like the military is one hundred times more important that giving the workers a few rifles.

We live in a world with aircraft carriers, jump jets, and atomic weaponry. The workers will not topple the military. The military will seize the government for the workers. If the workers tried to take the military (and the military did not go over the the revolutionaries) then the streets would be knee deep in our blood and we would have achieved absolutely nothing.

I am not some pacifist type, I have no trouble with your idea ethically, my problem is practical.

[Baff]

The key to the allegience of the military is paying them well and equiping them well and providing them with battles they can win.

Since dole dodging, lefty, (you stand up first,) revolutionaries can't pay for anything, persisitently cry on about how evil war is, decry our troops for every war they engage in, don't value armaments as much as they do dole payments; no amount of "raising class consciousness" in the military is going to get you very far.

You don't support them, why on earth would they wish to support you?

It would be much different if we had a conscript military I think. Then you'd have some honest chance.
But a professional military? It's first loyalty is to those who pay.

Even the IRA was run by the money men.


For a country like ours you need a different kind of revolution. An Orange revolution or an Egyptian revolution or the one in V for Vendetta.
Because if you attempt to usurp the military or engender an armed struggle in any way, you are going to meet the SAS. Probably at about 6 AM while you are asleep.

How does it start? It starts with you going and standing in parliament square for as long as it takes for enough other people to feel the same as you and come and stand with you.

[Drlee]

The key to the allegience of the military is paying them well and equiping them well and providing them with battles they can win.

Not in my experience. I was in a poorly paid military, poorly equipped for the loosing war we were in and completely loyal to my country and its leaders. So were virtually all of my compatriots.

It would be much different if we had a conscript military I think. Then you'd have some honest chance.
But a professional military? It's first loyalty is to those who pay.

Again. Not the way it is. You could not be more wrong. Like all Army's they are loyal to their country and they first and foremost fight for what is good for their families and loved ones.

[Baff]

Were you a conscript or a professional soldier?

Bear in mind even the stupidly low pay professional soldiers get is significantly better than being on the dole and ridiculously better than not being paid at all.
If you don't pay soldiers enough to eat and support their families, they defect.

If you do, they don't.

What did they call the Russian soldiers during the collapse of the Soviet Union? Mercenaries. They would fight for on side in the morning, the other in the afternoon.
An enormous amount of battles have been lost by paying soldiers to change sides.
A soldier has national and compatriot loyalty by default, but without the money he needs to feed his family.. what else is he going to do?

No soldier can ever be well enough equiped to my mind, but a serious estimation of a soldiers equipment should be a comparison between his and the person he is fighting.
The military is never going to get all the money it can eat. In fact if there isn't a war on, it is unlikely to get anything more than life support in my opinion.

[Drlee]

Were you a conscript or a professional soldier?

I was a professional soldier. I served with both conscripts and enlistees. There is no difference in practice. Both start at the bottom of the chain of command and decide at some point to become a career soldier.

Bear in mind even the stupidly low pay professional soldiers get is significantly better than being on the dole and ridiculously better than not being paid at all.

No offense Baaf, but what country do you live in? A mid career noncommissioned officer in the US Army earns the civilian equivalent of far more than a school teacher or policeman.

This 10 year man earns base pay of about $3600.00 a month. Nontaxable housing is about $1500.00 a month. Nontaxable food is about $300.00 per month. So this "stupidly low" pay amounts in round numbers to $5500.00 a month with $2K of that nontaxable. Then there is the absolutely free health care for themselves and their family. What is that worth? You can't buy it because there is no company that will sell it to you but it has to be worth $600.00 and probably far more. So we are at, what? The civilian equivalent of $80K per year? But wait! This "stupidly low pay" soldier has a 20 year retirement. He pays noting for it but around the age of 40 or younger he draws over $2K per month for life and essentially free health care.

Spare me the starting pay argument you will only embarass yourself. It is the civilian equivalent of 30K+ per year.

So you should familiarize yourself with the subject before you discourse on it.

If you don't pay soldiers enough to eat and support their families, they defect.

No they don't? Where did you ever get this idea? American soldiers in WWII made $21.00 a month to start. NO WAY they could support their families. Soldiers always eat. All armies feed their troops. A professional army which imagines that soldiers might have families and a middle class lifestyle is a fairly recent thing.

No soldier can ever be well enough equiped to my mind, but a serious estimation of a soldiers equipment should be a comparison between his and the person he is fighting.

In a perfect world, yes. If not one improvises. In the case of the US Army there IS no better equipped soldier.

The military is never going to get all the money it can eat. In fact if there isn't a war on, it is unlikely to get anything more than life support in my opinion

And finally you are wrong about this. The US Army has improved in both equipment and training in peacetime. How do I know? I lived it. Why should you believe me? Because on what you refer to as "life support" we created an Army that could overwhelm any non-nuclear foe on the planet. And we did this while both shrinking and increasing the size of our military. We developed some of the most effective battlefield weaponry ever during peacetime.

Frankly Baaf, I don't know what point you wish to make. Certainly the military is not your strong suit.

[Eran]

Because on what you refer to as "life support" we created an Army that could overwhelm any non-nuclear foe on the planet. And we did this while both shrinking and increasing the size of our military. We developed some of the most effective battlefield weaponry ever during peacetime.

What for? How can you tell it was worth it?

[Drlee]

^^


Wait until the next war and see. That is how it has been done throughout history. But only the victors participate in the survey... No nation has ever been defeated because it was too strong.

[Baff]

No offense Baaf, but what country do you live in? A mid career noncommissioned officer in the US Army earns the civilian equivalent of far more than a school teacher or policeman.

Make your mind up. A post or two ago you were complaining about low paid they were. It seems to me you simply disagreeing with me for arguments sake alone.


I'm British.
Peacetime spending on our army is usually an ever reducing thing.
The big improvements and kit replacements programs have almost exclusively been commisioned in times of war.

UK soldiers pay starts at £14,000 a year. The average wage here is £26,000 a year.
You could reasonably expect to receive in the order of £12+ thousand a year here on benefits. With, in extreme cases, some people getting as much as £26,000.

Idle fantasies about the all conquering power of the American army make me yawn.

[Drlee]

Make your mind up. A post or two ago you were complaining about low paid they were. It seems to me you simply disagreeing with me for arguments sake alone.

Nonsense. Read my post. I said that I was in a poorly paid army.......That was over 40 years ago! During my 20 years in the Army I saw salaries rise precipitiously.

Now please, for candor sake, post the pay of a mid grade sergeant in the British Army. IIR it is well over 40k GBP per year and possessed of wonderful benefits and generous retirement. Perhaps Cartertonian will weigh in on this.

Finally. Yawn away. The reason your country can cut its military spending so much is simply the fact that we are protecting you and the rest of Europe. There are many of us in the US who believe that you ought to do more and that we ought to bring our folks home.

[Eran]

Wait until the next war and see. That is how it has been done throughout history. But only the victors participate in the survey... No nation has ever been defeated because it was too strong.

Then why are we wasting money on PBS? We should put every dime into our glorious armed forces!

No nation was defeated because it was too strong, but many nations were defeated because they felt too strong.

As for "waiting until the next war", I would be delighted. Unfortunately, the US keeps looking for trouble abroad. The powers that be are (understandably, from their perspective) positively itching for a fight.

[Drlee]

^^

Eran. We clash pretty often and usually I can count on a well thought out and considered post from you. That last one was just not up to your standards.

PBS?

Please.

[nucklepunche]

Finally. Yawn away. The reason your country can cut its military spending so much is simply the fact that we are protecting you and the rest of Europe. There are many of us in the US who believe that you ought to do more and that we ought to bring our folks home.

You can count me in that group, and it is only a matter of time where events force them to defend themselves. Fiscal events.

[Drlee]

Yes. And against an increasingly well armed and threatening Russia. Russia is oil rich and Putin just loves to flex his (for the time being) fairly weak muscles. But the future will be different. He has discovered that he can maintain a nominal dictatorship and has the money for arms. He has pretensions for global power. That is a dangerous combination.

[Eran]

Eran. We clash pretty often and usually I can count on a well thought out and considered post from you. That last one was just not up to your standards.

PBS?

Please.

Thank you.

I'd hate disappointing you, so I will try to explain myself again.

My point about PBS was that spending decisions (like all decisions, actually) are about trade-offs. Even if you believe that, other things being equal, a strong army is a good thing (and I am not sure I agree), you must still ask yourself about cost. If having a strong army was so important as to trump all other considerations, we would, as a nation, dedicate every available penny towards strengthening the army (or, more generally, national defence or security).

I chose PBS as an example of government spending that cannot easily be rationalised as necessary for national security. I hope you agree. I also assumed that you support government spending on PBS (I obviously don't).

So even if national defence is very important, we must still weigh it against alternative uses of funds. We must still, in other words, rationalise the current level of spending, given current level of credible threats, rather than merely adopting the attitude of "the more the merrier".

Does that make sense?

[Drlee]

^^

Perfect sense.

My point about PBS was that spending decisions (like all decisions, actually) are about trade-offs. Even if you believe that, other things being equal, a strong army is a good thing (and I am not sure I agree), you must still ask yourself about cost. If having a strong army was so important as to trump all other considerations, we would, as a nation, dedicate every available penny towards strengthening the army (or, more generally, national defence or security).

Speaking of the army for a moment. Of course cost is a trade off. The perfect balance is to have a military that is strong enough to fulfill a countries political and defense aims but no stronger than is fiscally responsible. Further. While it may be desireable to have a powerful expeditionary military it may not be practical from a cost standpoint. I would put it this way....Defense at all costs offense if practical.

I chose PBS as an example of government spending that cannot easily be rationalised as necessary for national security. I hope you agree. I also assumed that you support government spending on PBS (I obviously don't).

I agree with you that PBS is not necessary for defense but then neither are the national parks, colleges and universities etc. I do not take the extreme position that the only desireable function of government is national defense. I believe there is a balance. I like PBS. I watch it and I support it with my modest contributions. The total federal involvement in PBS amounts to $1.70 per person per year. I think this is a wonderful example of good value for the money. I am a small government republican but that does not mean that I begin with the assumption that all government spending is inherently bad. If there is government spending that is beneficial and the majority of the people think it is so, then I am all for it. I believe government spending, just like its business brother, is in the end a matter of cost benefit analysis. So I think PBS is worth it. Other and I hope you are not one of them, think it is worth the money but would sacrifice it on the altar of ideological purity.

So even if national defence is very important, we must still weigh it against alternative uses of funds. We must still, in other words, rationalise the current level of spending, given current level of credible threats, rather than merely adopting the attitude of "the more the merrier".

I totally agree with this.

[Eran]

The perfect balance is to have a military that is strong enough to fulfill a countries political and defense aims but no stronger than is fiscally responsible.

Excellent. Except for the "political" part, which sounds like an invitation for foreign adventurism.

What is your view on the legitimate and appropriate goals for the US military in today's world?

Would you acknowledge that security threats faced by the US and America have been exacerbated by highly-visible global US military presence?


On being a small government Republican, would you accept the principle that for government spending to be justified, it must fund projects that cannot easily be accomplished without it?

Do you think government support of PBS is a pure good, or can you see the potential harm (to PBS itself) of having "political strings" attached to its production and broadcasting decisions?

[Drlee]

What is your view on the legitimate and appropriate goals for the US military in today's world?

I like TR's "walk softly but carry a big stick". Like it or not things that happen overseas can have profound effect on our security at home. Defense AT the border is not sufficient to protect the citizens. So we should have an adequate capability for defending ourselves off-shore if necessary. Iraning nuclear ambitions or Afgan training of terrorists come to mind.

Would you acknowledge that security threats faced by the US and America have been exacerbated by highly-visible global US military presence?

Perhaps. I think there is no good alternative. The Iraq affair was an appalling mistake. Afghanistan not. There are appropriate uses of a strong military and bad ones. That is the issue IMO.

On being a small government Republican, would you accept the principle that for government spending to be justified, it must fund projects that cannot easily be accomplished without it?

The operative word here is "easily". It would not be easy to replace the park service, the CDC or the FDA for example. Neigh on impossible in my opinion. The space program is another good use of government money and resources also. So what is the limit? I am sure I don't know. I would certainly abolish the Department of Education and might seriously downsize the Department of Veteran's Affairs because the former is clearly a state issue and the later provides very little bang for the buck.

Do you think government support of PBS is a pure good, or can you see the potential harm (to PBS itself) of having "political strings" attached to its production and broadcasting decisions?

Wrong question. First I don't see the strings in any real sense. If there are strings they are more likely to be state ones than federal. Most stations are run by state colleges and universities. If it were not publically funded it would not be PBS. It would be just another for profit television station. Its ability to produce programming that must not be first and foremost profitable is far more empowering than any government control is limiting.

[Baff]

Finally. Yawn away. The reason your country can cut its military spending so much is simply the fact that we are protecting you and the rest of Europe. There are many of us in the US who believe that you ought to do more and that we ought to bring our folks home.

You can count me in that group, and it is only a matter of time where events force them to defend themselves. Fiscal events.

So quit whelping to us about how fantastic you are and do it.
We know full well from every other example in history, that when we are under attack in Europe, that you won't be there.
Why kid yourselves, you aren't fooling us.

You want us to thank you for defending us?
Show up when we are under attack one day and we will.
There is a first time for everything I suppose.