"Pro Second Amendment" and "Pro Military"; a Contradiction?

[BigRed]

https://mises.org/wire/second-amendments-authors-would-hate-todays-military


This article explores a certain position I have shared with others.

What are your thoughts?

 

[actaeon277]

Your fellow citizens can be used to take your arms.
So is arming fellow citizens against the 2nd amendment?

 

[Leadeye]

I shoot and collect guns because I enjoy it. It's way beyond my thinking that I would ever need to use those guns to defend myself from an organized military turned on it's citizens.

 

[Brad69]

The Madison wing of the founding fathers were against a standing Army for two main reasons.

1. Money it takes a lot of it to feed,House,and equip an Army.

2. The abusive British Army

The “redcoats” were often housed in civilian homes where you were required to feed do laundry ect. all on your dime.
British Soldiers of the time were little better than convicts with poor moral standards for the time. The Colonist had fought along side them against the French and Indians and didn’t care for them. They were not a very nice group often rapists and drunks abounded in the ranks.

The the other reason would be the examples set by European Armies being used to “enslave” the people and even collect taxes.
Samuel Adams was a big fan of this opinion.

Today the Regular Army is made up of people from all over the country it is typically garrisoned in remote areas.
When was the last time you personally witnessed a Regular Army Soldier? not NG or Reserve.

The 2nd AD vs the standing Military argument is usually used by anti 2AD groups. The logic is that if you support the 2AD you don’t support a standing Military. Then you go into how much money you can save that could be spent on social programs.
In a addition the anti 2AD fight if you believe in the 2AD only a trained force should have weapons.

 

[SwikLS]

Typical anti-2A nonsense that doesn't understand the 2A.

The notion that the 2A provides a check on tyranny has a passive component (which functions now as it always does) and an active component. The passive component is the notion that tyrannical factions within the country would be deterred from engaging in tyrannical behavior because it would end in failure every single time. The active component would be to ensure that tyrannical factions would inevitably fail should there ever actually be "constitutional breakdown" (Scalia's words in Heller).


Also, as a side note from the article:

"The final death throes for the militia began with the Dick Act (the Militia Act) of 1903."

This could be the most accurately named piece of legislation in US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

 

[KellyinAvon]

Civilian Control of the Military: has worked pretty well so far.

Military: defends the United States, supports National Security interests.

2A: Individual right, provides for self-defense.

Our Founders: Lived in a time when 25% of Boston's population was occupying British Forces. If they returned today they'd ask, "What the hell happened to England and France?"

As SwikLS mentioned "Constitutional Breakdown": An external threat to our sovereignty would be a Constitutional breakdown. When you get passed the #1 military on the planet you have a group of people who possess 46% of the firearms on Earth. Anybody up for that?

Also, it strikes me as disingenuous that the people who say you can't be pro-2A and pro-military, support neither.

 

[actaeon277]

Civilian Control of the Military: has worked pretty well so far.

Military: defends the United States, supports National Security interests.

2A: Individual right, provides for self-defense.

Our Founders: Lived in a time when 25% of Boston's population was occupying British Forces. If they returned today they'd ask, "What the hell happened to England and France?"

As SwikLS mentioned "Constitutional Breakdown": An external threat to our sovereignty would be a Constitutional breakdown. When you get passed the #1 military on the planet you have a group of people who possess 46% of the firearms on Earth. Anybody up for that?

Also, it strikes me as disingenuous that the people who say you can't be pro-2A and pro-military, support neither.

Also, it strikes me as disingenuous that the people who say you can't be pro-2A and pro-military, support neither

Fighting foreign ICBMs, tanks, etc on your own territory with just a rifle seems kind of ludicrous.

The best defense against a rogue military, educating the military with American history, Constitution, and government.
The best defense against rogue politicians, educating the populace.

I think we've been failing BIG TIME on educating the populace.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Also, it strikes me as disingenuous that the people who say you can't be pro-2A and pro-military, support neither

Fighting foreign ICBMs, tanks, etc on your own territory with just a rifle seems kind of ludicrous.

The best defense against a rogue military, educating the military with American history, Constitution, and government.
The best defense against rogue politicians, educating the populace.

I think we've been failing BIG TIME on educating the populace.

An occupying force would have a hard time of it here. Make it uninhabitable from Ohio to Nevada then occupy the east and left coasts? That's probably a plan on a shelf somewhere.

 

[actaeon277]

An armed civilian population would make it difficult.
But I'd rather no one invades in the first place.

Wars are fought, not because someone knows they will win, but rather because someone "thinks" they will win.

 

[Twangbanger]

For most of the last seven decades, many Republican politicians (Dick Lugar springs to mind, for a close-to-home example) needed absolutely nothing else to get elected over and over, besides being "strong on defense." Once (some) voters started requiring more of their politicians, dinosaurs like this one suddenly found themselves in strange, unfamiliar territory.

Times do change, but the GOP is still essentially in the business of using "Support the Troops" and "Social Issues" to sell economic libertarian policies to ordinary people who are harmed by those policies. Watch the GOP's behavior: the 3 things they will absolutely go to the mat for are 1) Tax Cuts (mostly for business), 2) Open Border / Cheap Wages (always for business), and 3) Neverending War (see a pattern?). When the interests of business coincide with things voters will vote for, that's their meal-card.

It is painful, but the GOP has to periodically taste being out of power, to remember there is more to life in the Republic than Abortion and the Military.

 

[KLB]

For most of the last seven decades, many Republican politicians (Dick Lugar springs to mind, for a close-to-home example) needed absolutely nothing else to get elected over and over, besides being "strong on defense." Once (some) voters started requiring more of their politicians, dinosaurs like this one suddenly found themselves in strange, unfamiliar territory.

Times do change, but the GOP is still essentially in the business of using "Support the Troops" and "Social Issues" to sell economic libertarian policies to ordinary people who are harmed by those policies. Watch the GOP's behavior: the 3 things they will absolutely go to the mat for are 1) Tax Cuts (mostly for business), 2) Open Border / Cheap Wages (always for business), and 3) Neverending War (see a pattern?). When the interests of business coincide with things voters will vote for, that's their meal-card.

It is painful, but the GOP has to periodically taste being out of power, to remember there is more to life in the Republic than Abortion and the Military.

A tax cut for a business tends to be in favor of anyone that buys that businesses products. Any taxes they pay are passed onto the consumers of their products.

Who in the Republican party is in favor of open borders?

When did libertarians become in favor of never ending wars?

 

[breakingcontact]

I like this conversation.

It depends upon the state of the military.

 

[HoughMade]

Saying you can't be pro-military and pro-second amendment is like saying you can't be pro-fire and pro-water.

Fire is a great tool and without it, our lives would be miserable, brutish and short. No cooked food. No heat. No light after sunset, etc., etc., etc.

However, it's a good idea to have a means of trying to keep the fire in its proper place.

 

[actaeon277]

Saying you can't be pro-military and pro-second amendment is like saying you can't be pro-fire and pro-water.

Fire is a great tool and without it, our lives would be miserable, brutish and short. No cooked food. No heat. No light after sunset, etc., etc., etc.

However, it's a good idea to have a means of trying to keep the fire in its proper place.

Awesome.