A question for conservatives.

I think most will say they think the constitution should be followed. It's been a while since I went to law school. What does the constitution say about a standing army. I know what the second amendment says.

Yes
Yes
We should have a much smaller standing "Army" DOD with a much more robust National Guard to include Air.

Not wanting to get into foreign affairs, depends, will it potentially be a much worse scenario if we don't? My opinion of current operations, hmm...tough to say I deploy a lot and my son is preparing for his first deployment.

Why is this question for conservatives ony?

Yes.

To a certain extent, outlined in the Constitution, and based on statements in the Declaration of Independence.

No standing Army? Currently, the military is an all volunteer force. Not sure how this is a question that you could legitimately pose. I will say that I believe that the National Guard should be a higher priority than the active duty folks, and that states should decide whether or not to send forth their militia to support wars on the national level. That, in my opinion, would plausibly put an end to constant involvement in foreign matters.

As far as changing my view on military ops, it doesn't because this is a fantasy scenario. Anything else, man?

quote:

---

No standing Army? Currently, the military is an all volunteer force. Not sure how this is a question that you could legitimately pose.

---

Because the British had a standing army, that was employed around the clock, and they became a tool of the state, instead of ordinary men defending their homeland (which I believe the 2nd amendment was all about).

quote:

---

How do you feel about their not wanting to get into foreign nations affairs? Does it change your opinion about current military operations?

---

quote:

---

A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties

---

quote:

---

And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.

---

quote:

---

To this great national object, a NAVY, union will contribute in various ways. Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentred towards its formation and support. A navy of the United States, as it would embrace the resources of all, is an object far less remote than a navy of any single State or partial confederacy, which would only embrace the resources of a single part.

---

quote:

---

If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dock-yards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons. When a nation has become so powerful by sea that it can protect its dock-yards by its fleets, this supersedes the necessity of garrisons for that purpose; but where naval establishments are in their infancy, moderate garrisons will, in all likelihood, be found an indispensable security against descents for the destruction of the arsenals and dock-yards, and sometimes of the fleet itself.

---

You should read The Federalist Papers. It has a lot of information on what they thought about foreign affairs, the Rights of individual citizens to bear arms, and providing defense of the nation as a whole. As well as, the rights of States.

More to the point: I think it's hypocritical to tout small government while you support the current size of our military.

I think it makes for a healthier nation if the populace is armed and unruly.

quote:

---

You should read The Federalist Papers.

---

I have. Wasn't impressed. I was impressed with Lysander Spooner's the "Highwayman." Ignoring that, he had the balls to take on a government monoloy.

quote:

---

Lysander Spooner's

---

Impractical, and impossible to apply individualism in a society as a whole. While there are many things he said that should hold true for individuals, it can't be applied in the same way enmass.

quote:

---

I'm asking if you think we should follow the founding fathers wishes, wouldn't it make more sense to support decreasing the military while protecting the individuals right to bear arms?

---

I think most conservatives would agree with this.

quote:

---

Impractical, and impossible to apply individualism in a society as a whole.

---

We apply it everywhere except for the government.

Don't like a church? You leave and you are no longer under an obligation to support them financially. They won't follow you around, claiming to steal from you for your own good.

quote:

---

While there are many things he said that should hold true for individuals, it can't be applied in the same way enmass.

---

Why? Because it's what you grew up with? If something isn't working, it's not worth supporting financially. Why should I support monopolies with these people who fail time and time again?