The Dummycrats want war.
I fear CW II will make the First look like a picnic
"...CW II will make the First one look like a picnic..."
“I fear CW II will make the First look like a picnic”
Yes. And now that I’m too old to fight, I’ll just have to kill them.
If the damnable left gets what it is trying to provoke, it will be a war of all against all, with the authorities only one of hundreds or thousands of "sides".
A CW will make us a soft target to the NK’s, China, Russia and Islam. It will be the end of the Republic. The winners will be the RATS.
We need a peaceful secession of several states. But if it goes hot then so be it.
Can we just get on with it, already? After all, it won’t take long...
What can a militia be used for? It is a defensive military. Maybury states, “[A] militia-guerilla force cannot be used to invade other people’s homelands. Militiamen are only part-time soldiers. Because they have civilian jobs and families to take care of, a militia is strictly defensive, not offensive” (“World War I,” 103). It has few of the weapons built for attack, and many of its advantages are neutralized. Furthermore, the citizen-troops would be independent and unwilling to fight unless convinced that their cause was right. In addition, the capability to maintain an occupation army is nonexistent. So, then, invasions are well nigh impossible with a militia, and a war of conquest totally impossible. The style of military maintained by the U. S., however, is capable of, and indeed patterned for, an invasion. The militia eliminates the possibility of the military being used for trivial or warmongering reasons. Is this good? Some may note that the United States attacked Afghanistan in self-defense, and that this offensive operation would have been difficult with a militia. This is a serious objection. Nevertheless, there are several answers. First, it would have been far more difficult for the hijackers to get through an armed populace that perhaps would be carrying handguns. Next, a militia would not have given so much cause for offense to the Middle Eastern Moslems. Finally, a small standing army could be maintained, as I mentioned before, to carry out missions such as the ousting of the Taliban. Notably, U. S. ground forces did little; it was the U. S. air force and the Northern Alliance that did most of the work. So then, the lack of a large standing army would not be a major deficiency, while the far stronger defense could counter those deficiencies. The only good use for an army is to defend the nation from aggression by other countries or from attacks by other organizations such as terrorists. The militia meets the criteria for limiting wrong uses by precluding the possibility of the military being used for conquest or invasion.
Furthermore, a militia cannot interfere in politics, while a standing army can. It is self-evident that a government by the people, a republic, is not threatened by an armed populace (though a despot would be threatened by a militia.) There is no leader in such a militia with the power to meddle; but generals of standing armies have often meddled in third-world politics. A standing army like that of the United States does have the potential to meddle in politics, though the U. S. army most likely will never do so (or at least not soon.) Nevertheless, the political power of a standing army should not be taken lightly. Coups do not take place in a republic with a militia system.
Finally, a militia does not infringe on the freedoms of civilians. The militia is made up of the people; it is not an outside organization. A standing army, however, always has the potential to steal from civilians (in despotic governments), to take up too much land, to become a “police” force without controls, to be quartered in houses, or to otherwise get out of control and infringe on rights. This has not happened in America, and will not soon, but again the possibility exists. A militia does not infringe on civilians’ rights.
So then, the militia protects a nation very well, costs little, is only defensive, cannot meddle in politics, and does not infringe on freedoms. The standing army protects not as well, costs a huge amount, is primarily offensive, can meddle in politics, and could infringe on liberties. The major differences are these: a militia is better defensively and costs less, while a standing army is better offensively and costs more. But what are the most important criteria for a good military? Good protection and low cost. The militia meets these criteria far better than does a standing army.
A militia in the Swiss tradition was what the founding fathers were referring to when they wrote the second amendment: “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.” They knew of the great advantages of the militia system. So why doesn’t the United States use this system? It takes away a good portion of the power of the government, and naturally, the government would not like that. Also, the populace believes that the U. S. is ordained, or some thing like that, to be the world’s police force, to enforce global law, to punish wrongdoers—I will let former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, explain. During her time in office, she said this regarding Iraq (but it is accurate regarding American sentiment in general): “ If we have to use force, it is because we are America . We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future.” This arrogant idea is why we now maintain a costly offensive military.
Nevertheless, the militia pattern is the best type of military. It satisfies all of the criteria for a good army: it protects the nation well, it costs little, is cannot be used offensively, is cannot threaten the democratic government, and it cannot infringe on personal freedoms of civilians. A militia is the best military, and would be the best system for the United