NationStates Jolt Archive

...provide military equipment and training to all of its law-abiding citizens?

The Constitution does, after all, empower Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

The standard reply is that this is what the national guard is. Now are you asking if we should have a mandatory year or two in the military like Israel and Switzerland do?

I say no. I don't trust the ability of vast majority of Americans not to cause significant damage with military-grade hardware. Hell, I don't trust the ability of vast majority of Americans not to cause significant damage with an Internet connection.

Why?

no

too expensive.

better to train and equip those who want to serve and limit the number to the number we actually need.

Conscription, innit?

It would be rather interesting.

Many Americans are dumb and dangerous enough without equipping the vast majority of them with weapons, give the idiots a means to kill easily and watch the murder rates sky rocket.


For the record, I am American.

Many Americans are dumb and dangerous enough without equipping the vast majority of them with weapons, give the idiots a means to kill easily and watch the murder rates sky rocket.


For the record, I am American.Remember when the old G.W. Bush got elected, not a bad guy or president.

Then his son riding on his legacy got into office, not so good though I would personally not mind knowing him as a friend. I just think he lacks the stuff to be president.

Isn't that what the military is? They do provide it..its just voluntary to join (unless during wartime when you are drafted...)

It would be a huge waste of military resources.

You arent in any danger of an invasion, so why spend time, effort and money organising that type of miltary.

Remember when the old G.W. Bush got elected, not a bad guy or president.
He said Atheists should not be considered American citizens. Little known fact.

Then his son riding on his legacy got into office, not so good though I would personally not mind knowing him as a friend. I just think he lacks the stuff to be president.
I wouldn't mind having Stalin or Mussolini as a friend either, I am sure.

He said Atheists should not be considered American citizens. Little known fact.


I wouldn't mind having Stalin or Mussolini as a friend either, I am sure.Yeah, he has said some shit, but proably a fairly decent person in reality if not better then Nazi view of different peoples.:(

Yet, have Stalin as a friend would be cool, till you ended getting mined by gold in the gulag.

Yeah, he has said some shit, but proably a fairly decent person in reality if not better then Nazi view of different peoples.:(
I wouldn't want to hang with a person who sees me as below himself.

Yet, have Stalin as a friend would be cool, till you ended getting mined by gold in the gulag.
They may be ok as long as they are not acting like murderous psycopaths, but knowing the horrible crimes they commit would make me despise them, even if we were just having a drink.

A Swiss/Israeli style mandatory service doesn't make sense for the US. Its strategic and defense goals are met with the current arrangement. Switzerland and Israel are much different, surrounded by hostile nations (well, not the case in modern Switzerland).

Too expensive, and unwieldly for the objectives of the US military.

A Swiss/Israeli style mandatory service doesn't make sense for the US. Its strategic and defense goals are met with the current arrangement. Switzerland and Israel are much different, surrounded by hostile nations (well, not the case in modern Switzerland).

Too expensive, and unwieldly for the objectives of the US military.
But they are surrounded by France, Germany, and Italy. All three of which are known to go crazy on the drop of a hat. Also, they Switzerland is expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

But they are surrounded by France, Germany, and Italy. All three of which are known to go crazy on the drop of a hat. Also, they Switzerland is expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Which is why it made sense for Switzerland. Everyone owns a rifle, is trained to use it, and can retreat into the mountains. Plus, with the cantonment system, proportionate representation and the ability to have a referendum on any undesirable law, fear of rebellion isn't likely.

The same can not be said of the US. Their history is about rebelling against oppression of their political masters. Thus, a gun in every hand is a potential weapon against the government. There's little fear of invasion by Mexico or Canada.

(At least, that's what I would like them to believe, until the very last moment.... )

It was the preferred old school method of keeping unemployment figures down. Cheaper than college too.

Since the government has discovered it can just lie about it these days, I don't see why they'd bother.

It probably wouldn't hurt much if they did it though.

There's little fear of invasion by Mexico or Canada.

You've obviously never seen Canadian Bacon.

...
The Constitution does, after all, empower Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Where does it suggest in the Constitution of the United States of America that Congress is empowered to arm, discipline and organize a militia?

Because this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not say that "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

So knowing you are certainly not speaking of the Second Amendment, what exactly are you spekaing of in the Constitution? What Article, Paragraph, something? Because your statement was made in " " meaning you were quoting something...that is what those things " " mean... quotes you know.

So what were you quoting? Because all I can find are Joseph Story Commentery on the Article, but I would hate to comment on an article of the Constitution I have not read in it's entirety.

Many Americans are dumb and dangerous enough without equipping the vast majority of them with weapons, give the idiots a means to kill easily and watch the murder rates sky rocket.


For the record, I am American.

By your words i think you are suggesting it is difficult to kill or that arms are somehow difficult to obtain. It is cheaper to buy a weapon illeagally then legally, that doesnt count safety classes, back ground checks, and wait time.

This also sets aside the idea that you can very easily beat someone to death, strangle them, or go to work with any number of house hold utensils, toxins under the kitchen sink or in the garage, or run them down in your SUV that will never touch a dirt road after you have had too much to drink...

Killing is damned well one of the easiest things a person can do, I dare say it cant be made any easier, save for being made legal.

Where does it suggest in the Constitution of the United States of America that Congress is empowered to arm, discipline and organize a militia?

Because this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not say that "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

So knowing you are certainly not speaking of the Second Amendment, what exactly are you spekaing of in the Constitution? What Article, Paragraph, something? Because your statement was made in " " meaning you were quoting something...that is what those things " " mean... quotes you know.

So what were you quoting? Because all I can find are Joseph Story Commentery on the Article, but I would hate to comment on an article of the Constitution I have not read in it's entirety.
Article 1, Section 8. Though technically speaking, Congress can provide for a milita, perscribe the training thereof, and call it into US service, but said militas belong to the states.

Well, I think we are forced to address States Rights by the Article in question then. Because it is asking if the Federal government can impose upon the individual state the cost of forming up a militia from which the Federal Government might draw upon. Or am I misreading it?

I was going to look at the constitutionality of this (state's right to organize militias, lack of mandated militia, etc.), or the danger of giving any moron a gun and the ability to use it well, but I decided that the answer to the OP could be handled in just one word: Why?

The standard reply is that this is what the national guard is. Now are you asking if we should have a mandatory year or two in the military like Israel and Switzerland do?

Not all law abiding citizens can be in the National Guard there is a rigid health screening process just as in the Army and Air Force.

I see nothing wrong with a little compulsory military service for all American males. I see nothing wrong with requiring them to have in their possession basic military equipment. I just think that the equipment should be US property.

Not all law abiding citizens can be in the National Guard there is a rigid health screening process just as in the Army and Air Force.

All law abiding citizens can try and join then fail the health screening.

All law abiding citizens can try and join then fail the health screening.

Yep that is pretty much how it works.

I see nothing wrong with a little compulsory military service for all American males. I see nothing wrong with requiring them to have in their possession basic military equipment. I just think that the equipment should be US property.

Why only males?

Why only males?

Because for obvious reasons civilized countries that are not in desperate straits (ie everyone other than Israel) should use women soldiers for support roles. A lot of these support roles only nominally require military training. Many of these support roles require training that is probably pretty darn similar for civilians and soldiers. For example: nurses and clerical workers.

In times of a national or regional emergency the military roles will be called up. It is less apparent why the supporting roles would be needed as well at least initially. For example, a National Guard helicopter unit could have taken ill or injured civilians from a flooded area to civilian hospitals. They would not necessarily need to take them to a military hospital.

These support roles become more important when we are fighting in hostile country and or in the third world. Obviously, we do not want to rely on civilian medical services in the third world because ours is better. It is just as obvious that we would not want to rely on medical services in a hostile country because then our wounded would become POWs.

...provide military equipment and training to all of its law-abiding citizens?

The Constitution does, after all, empower Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Does that mean I get an M-14 or M-16 to keep, if I'm in this government sponsored militia? If so, I'd prefer an M-14, as I already have an AR-15. :D

By your words i think you are suggesting it is difficult to kill or that arms are somehow difficult to obtain. It is cheaper to buy a weapon illeagally then legally, that doesnt count safety classes, back ground checks, and wait time.
You know whats even cheaper and easier? Having the Government put an assault weapon in the hands of anyone who has not yet broken the law.

Killing is damned well one of the easiest things a person can do, I dare say it cant be made any easier, save for being made legal.
It can be made easier by giving any random idiot an assault weapon if he asks for one.

I am not speaking of conscription, nor am I referring to the National Guard, which is part of the military. I am speaking of the reinstatement of a real militia - civilians who receive military equipment and training at taxpayer expense.

And for the record, we are NOT any stupider than citizens of any other country.

I am not speaking of conscription, nor am I referring to the National Guard, which is part of the military. I am speaking of the reinstatement of a real militia - civilians who receive military equipment and training at taxpayer expense.

And for the record, we are NOT any stupider than citizens of any other country.
Again, though, WHY?

I am not speaking of conscription, nor am I referring to the National Guard, which is part of the military. I am speaking of the reinstatement of a real militia - civilians who receive military equipment and training at taxpayer expense.

Is it mandatory? If so, we're talking about conscription. If if is voluntary, then it is the National Guard. The Guard is part-time soldiers, armed and trained by the taxpayers. The real militia (like the American Revolution) was self-armed with little to no training.

Like they would train the very people that could turn on them.

Again, though, WHY?

Actually, if the country went into a major economic depression, some form of mandatory national service for two or three years would probably be quite beneficial - depending on how it was run.

Actually, yes.

But it should not accompany any sort of mandatory "national service" program.

Actually, if the country went into a major economic depression, some form of mandatory national service for two or three years would probably be quite beneficial - depending on how it was run.
He does not seem to be talking about the CCC though.

He does not seem to be talking about the CCC though.

Well, nor am I really. The CCC was voluntary after all.

I really more suggesting that in the even of another great depression some type of compulsory government service for the younger section of the population could be advantageous. (Obviously it would have to be compulsory to make it seem fair, or at least more palatable). And who better than the military to administer the program? Clearly, they have the institutional knowledge and practices already suited to deal with that type of situation. Therefore it would probably take on a military character and training; even if the 'soldiers' ended up clearing scrub land for most of their term after passing out of basic.

Well, nor am I really. The CCC was voluntary after all.

I really more suggesting that in the even of another great depression some type of compulsory government service for the younger section of the population could be advantageous. (Obviously it would have to be compulsory to make it seem fair, or at least more palatable). And who better than the military to administer the program? Clearly, they have the institutional knowledge and practices already suited to deal with that type of situation. Therefore it would probably take on a military character and training; even if the 'soldiers' ended up clearing scrub land for most of their term after passing out of basic.
I could kinda see that working, assuming that people were given the choice between actual military (i.e. with guns) and more service type jobs. [Actually, doesn't Germany do that right now? Your choice of either service or military?] But it would seem that he is proposing arming every American with a military weapon and giving them training and I cannot see why he thinks this is a good idea.

...provide military equipment and training to all of its law-abiding citizens?

The Constitution does, after all, empower Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia".

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

It's impractical, and we already have the National Guard.

And Jolt should not empower one to use gun smileys.