![bald-eagle-hd-wallpapers-beautiful-desktop-background-pictures-widescreen[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fTMaPYV.jpg "bald-eagle-hd-wallpapers-beautiful-desktop-background-pictures-widescreen[1].jpg")
The federal power to provide a military, being unnecessary to the defense of a free state, and being counterproductive in guaranteeing the safety of the people, is hereby revoked, and the responsibility to defend the homeland is granted to the people in the form of private, well regulated militias.
>>56810777
What it effectively does:
>ends the military
>revokes the power of congress to declare war
>reinforces the second amendment
>private militias are now responsible for defending the people from foreign threats.
>>56810777
>LOOK MA I POSTED IT AGAIN
Rand Paul 2016 amirite, faggot?
>implying private militias can even come near the effectivesness required of a modern military
>Libertarians actually believe that some rebels in the 18th century procuring their own muskets and cannon is equivalent to some politically illiterate hicks getting modern arms, vehicles, weapons, and the infrastructure required to support them.
I know "it's 2015" is a meme, but it's not 1776 any more you fucking pleb.
>>56811076
>Turning the US Navy into a privateer fleet is a bad idea
>>56811076
95% of modern warfare is contracted out to external agencies etc.
>>56811000
>>ends the military
Putin says thanks.
>>revokes the power of congress to declare war
Congrats, now America lacks the ability to protect and advance their interests abroad, and is at the mercy of those who can.
>Reinforces the second amendment
Hicks and preppers could always carry guns you little shit, and getting rid of a proper military doesn't change this.
>Private militias are now responsible for defending the people from foreign threats
A job they cannot do effectively.
Why are libertarians so un-American.
>>56810777
I got you senpai
>To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.
-George Washington
Get fucked commie
>>56810777
Does the Department of Energy still retain control of our nuclear stockpile?
>>56811076
>the effectivesness required of a modern military
Effectiveness to do what? Instigate wars halfway around the war?
>>56811170
>Implying it is
Are you really so historically unread that you think the situation during the revolution is applicable today?
>>56811215
If by "modern warfare" you mean "building and designing stuff", then yeah. It's a good system, maintains central authority, and isn't subject to the inefficiencies of the government itself owning factories.
>>56811341
>Effectiveness to do what? Instigate wars halfway around the war?
Yes, that and the ability to engage enemy forces on their doorstep, instead of ours.
You ever wonder why castles and static defenses stopped being a thing? It's because they're inferior to mobile and aggressive forces.
>>56810777
Please, go ahead with this proposal.
>>56811382
There's also the mercenaries in Iraq and whoever the fuck Obama is arming in Syria.
>>56810777
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election and overall time of service to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states on February 27, 1951.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>>56811283
This guy gets it. A huge debate between Federalists and Democratic Republicans was whether or not the government should have military power at all. The compromise was the affirmative, but then the ratification of the second amendment, so as to have a public military and private militias keeping each other in check. In my opinion, the public military has over-stepped its bounds and only made us less safe.
>>56811564
Mercenaries and rebels are a special case, and don't really apply here. In any case, even if Obongo is giving them dosh, they aren't directly under his control.
>>56811225
You know whats up. Pragmatism, even if you are a right winger
I hate when leftists claim why can't everything be free without any effort
You hate when salty libertarians (anarchists) say we can defend ourselves without any effort
Shame left and right intellectuals cannot form some kind of coalition in which a universal basic income is guaranteed, secularised religion and pride of ones homeland are protected and we actually sort things out... *sigh*
>>56811382
It worked during New Orleans too, bro. Seriously, give one reason why giving our military freedom to act independently of the state and international law is a bad idea.
>>56811604
No what I'm telling you is that you're a faggot.
>>56811604
Why should the private militias have any authority over the government in the first place? By the very definition, citizens are subordinate to the state.
>>56810777
For my class, I need to propose 2 potential amendments to the constitution what could I say? Reminder I'd get graded for them.
>>56811855
Assuming you have an SJW teacher, propose the right to free healthcare and the right to free education.
>>56811728
>It worked during New Orleans too, bro
When? Lots of stuff has happened in New Orleans, and I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.
>Seriously, give one reason why giving our military freedom to act independently of the state
Said military action may not be in accordance with state will, and will thus suffer from coordination issues. It turns out that the free market isn't too good at commanding military action.
>international law
There is no "international law", because there is no super-state that can enforce international law. It would be better described as "things you don't do if you don't want to incur the wrath of the civilized world", but it's not "law" as there is no sovereign entity by which to uniformly enforce it.
>inb4 the UN
>>56811945
She's only partially SJW. She doesn't agree with muslims going into Europe.
>a military is unnecessary for defense
>>56811855
Nullify every amendment but the BoR.
Require every American to own a gun
A few problems would result. Big ones.
It wouldn't be many private militias, instead, the extant PMCs would swell up like balloons and take over.
Other, competing PMCs would be needed to keep each other in check, but given how little the government cares about it's own anti-trust laws, they'd probably all share a board of directors and basically be on the same side. Law enforcement and smaller militias would perpetually be at odds with these people by necessity; were the whole country on the side of the PMC, the PMC would control the country by virtue of possessing all the force.
Either no secrets could be kept by the PMC, ensuring a swift defeat every time, or they could keep a lot of secrets that become extremely dangerous when considering their firepower and working against the government all the time, as it would because letting yourself get regulated isn't profitable.
And the biggest problem of all is that PMCs don't or won't get paid to do nothing (unlike a military) as the government will consider them a separate entity, to which funding can more easily be cut. But PMCs cannot afford to rapidly grow or shrink in response to war and peace. Therefore, they will try to start wars as often as possible. And we would suffer immensely.
>>56811855
1. Get rid of minimum wage laws and all welfare
2. Introduce a progressive income tax that does not go above 40% at infinite income, and is 0% at 10,000 p/year or less; as well as introducing a "citizen's wage" or "basic income" of 10,000 p/year, gradually approaching 0 p/year as the individual makes a private income (non-citizen's wage) of 10,000 p/year to 100,000 p/year.
>>56811341
>not understanding the role of the US military in the contemporary world order
this is why plebs shouldn't be able to vote
>>56811225
>We must conquer the world to defend ourselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku1FSCzOyrQ
>>56812289
I never said anything about "just" defending ourselves, Bjork. It just so happens that offense is the best defense.
P A X
A M E R I C A N A
>>56812207
What's your incentive for making sure people don't rely on the citizen's wage?
>muh guns
>>56812366
Just remembered that the game is rigged against you in the long run.
>>56812207
this is communism draped in the American flag, At least you don't have to openly acknowledge it ey? MUH FREE MARKET, MUH ADAM SMITH, MUH AYAN RAND
>>56812014
It's funny that you can't name a single reason private militias can't effectively defend the homeland. Did you know Iceland doesn't have a standing military? Did you know Switzerland barely uses theirs? Neither country has been attacked in a long, long time. Can you name one time a country attacked the US? Other than, well, 9/11, which was a result of our public military bombing a sovereign state. Do you know why no one attacks us? It's not because of out military, it is, and always has been because our citizens are armed.My amendment would only enhance that. Did you know that there are free standing, private (free market) militias that exist to this day (more prominent than ever before) that own tanks and artillery, yet never use them incorrectly?
It sucks that you have to be so delusional. Go ahead and keep supporting our foreign wars. They won't make your life easier.
>>56812379
10,000 p/year isn't that much, and is below the poverty line. making 20,000 p/year (citizen's wage + 10,000 p/year in private income) is comfortable for a bachelor, but is still a rather poor life.
It would merely be a method by which to ensure the gears of the economy keep turning at the base, with the poor, lower class.
In addition, the money saved from cutting ALL welfare will easily be able to pay for citizen's wage.
TL;DR: Republishits are happy because everyone is back to private stuff and taxes are lowered, Democraps are happy because citizen's wage is literally the holy grail of welfare, and can be increased as needed as the economy improves.
I love freedoms and guns but this is a stupid idea.
The military should be scaled back to a defensive force with quick strike capabilities and limited occupational means. The difference in funding should be used to cover healthcare and subsidies for militia forces.
>>56810777
>Thinks this is a good idea.
Why not just have a law or whatever that sets up a Praetorian Guard and makes it illegal to use US Military Personnel on US soil except in cases of disaster relief? That way you haven't castrated your nation and you're capable of protecting interests overseas?
I mean this law as is, is nothing more than cutting your nose off to spite your face.
>>56812389
I just got their new album.
It's called "Macaroni and Beans".
Great stuff.
>>56810777
Geopolitics is way too intense not to have a projecting force. The petrodollar is being threatened and we need a way to defend our supremacy. Retards with guns wouldn't do shit to insure our victory. We Cold War 2.0 rn if you haven't noticed
How about this?
22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution: "All rights guaranteed in the first ten amendments are non revokable, and regulations that prevent the excercise of ownership specific small arms, espousing of free beliefs and religious expression, and protection of search and seizure are hereby null and void. All laws that intentionally create unfair bias towards any group of individuals regardless of motivation are null and void, and laws and policies pursued by the governments of these United States shall be equally applied to the benefit of the people."
>>56812645
Nobody gives a shit if you're armed you dumb fat cunts.
We're in the days of automated drones hahahahaha this dickhead thinks its the sixties
>>56812603
The game is rigged against everyone in the long run.
>>56812619
>I don't know the definition of communism
M8, what I just proposed would be cheaper than the welfare America CURRENTLY has.
>>56812645
>Did you know Iceland doesn't have a standing military?
Because no one cares about Iceland, and their existence in ensured by the fact that literally every other civilized nation would defend them.
>Did you know Switzerland barely uses theirs?
Well no shit, they're a tiny European country that can rely on the military forces of their allies, it still doesn't change the fact that Swiss men are required to serve in the national military for 2 years.
>Neiher country has been attacked in a long, long time
See above.
>Can you ... 9/11
Most recently, I would say Japan. In any case, it's still good to have a military. In the worst case scenario, they loaf around and suck up tax dollars; in the best case, you have a military able to defend and attack as necesary.
>Which ... state
Our military*, you fucking libertarian shill.
>Do you know why no one attacks us?
Because America is the de facto hegemonic power of the world, and attacking us would not only incur military action, but also economic and political sanctions for years to come.
>because our citizens are armed
The citizenry has always been a last line of defense in case the national military was unable to prevent an invasion of America, and they are not to be relied on solely.
>Did ... artillery
And they are tiny, inexperienced, likely mismanaged, and would be quickly crushed in a proper invasion.
>Incorrectly
Oh piss off you fucking faggot.
>They won't make your life easier
Except they do, since they ensure that America is at the top of the totem pole. In any case, I don't care if they make my life better or worse, personally, I care because I support my nation.
Why have Americans become the biggest bootlickers in the world when early Americans were so suspicious of the military? You would never hear anybody say this about the military today:
">The military parade which meets the eye in almost every direction, excites the gall of our citizens; they feel a just indignation at the sight of loungers who live upon the public, who consume the fruits of their honest industry under the pretext of protecting them from a foreign yoke. They put no confidence, Sir, in the protection of a handful of ragamuffins; they know that, when danger comes, they must meet it and they only ask arms at your hands. Gentlemen have talked of organizing the militia. I call upon them to make good what they have said. Instead of reducing this force, I could wish to see the whole of it, reprobated as it is by our citizens, abandoned, and the defence of the country placed in proper, those of the people. Our citizens are confident in their strength; they know themselves to be capable of protecting their own property and liberty; they do not want their noses held to the grindstone to pay protectors; the surplusage of their labor they wish to employ in increasing their property, in providing for their offspring – that numerous and increasing population of which gentlemen have said so much; they do not wish to have money forced out of their pockets to pay hirelings, under the stale pretext of keeping off French invasion."
>>56812289
If we don't Russia and China will faggot. It's a dog eat dog world >>56812289
>>56812645
All being armed means is occassionally one of your lonely wound up teens decides to start shooting up a school hahahaha
He thinks open fire arms makes his culture better. Hahaha we love a good laugh when some numb spazz starts shooting up a school and you have the fake media scare in which nothing changes. God you're so boring America, change it up a bit, yeah?
>>56813061
>and regulations that prevent the excercise of ownership specific small arms
Schizos and criminals can now legally purchase and own guns; good going, fuck face.
>and protection of search and seizure are hereby null and void
Congratulations, you just gave each and every American citizen sovereignty.
Pro tip, private property doesn't actually exist in the sense that you're thinking of it, retard.
>All... void
Fucking muzzy lover.
>and... people
What the fuck does this even mean.
>>56813263
>Why have Americans become the biggest bootlickers in the world when early Americans were so suspicious of the military? You would never hear anybody say this about the military today:
>All revolutionary Americans thought the exact same!
Anti-federalist scum doesn't constitute the entirety of the revolutionary generation, you historically illiterate dick sucker.
>>56813263
And, in any case
>Quotes and policy from the revolutionary era
>applicable today
That's like saying that Plato or Aristotle have the absolute final word on anything to do with philosophy, simply because they're older. It's fallacious to such an extreme degree that I'm actually getting mad.
>>56813544
>>56813738
John Randolph of Roanoke was a Republican in the 1800s. He was just a kid when the Constitution was written.
>>56812688
Organize the public into militia units by doing the following.
Your summer after your last year of highschool you spend 4 months at a summercamp where you are trained in gun safety, marksmanship and basic fitness. You will be paid a reasonable amount for your 4 months and receive a tax break for completing it successfully.
You have an option to be trained to an advanced level. Advanced level training is a year where you can learn squad management, ambush tactics, demolition, etc. Advanced level training makes you essentially a squad leader for local militia operations.
Weapon caches including anti-tank weapons, rifles, ammunition and tactical gear are set up to supply civilians should they need it. These caches can be unlocked and handed out by military members and people with advanced level training in the event of a conflict.
A series of government shooting ranges would be opened where you can get 5.56 for extremely cheap as long as it is shot at the range. 3 gun and other competitive shooting matches will be held at these ranges on a regular basis. Furthermore these ranges provide surplus semi-auto M16s for civilian purchase at roughly $600 per rifle, in order to purchase you must show a gun cabinet, no criminal record and safe gun handling.
>>56813818
hahahahahahahahahahaha
fuck me, you love camps and guns aye? Sounds pretty gay to me
>>56813811
>Republicans of that era
>equivalent to the Republicans of today
You never even bothered to take American History 101, did you?
>>56813818
At this point you're just formalizing the civilian reserves; it's a good idea regardless, but it's nothing new or ideologically profound.
![sm3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/o2PN6Qf.jpg "sm3[1].jpg")
>>56812289
>we must give our wives to islamists because we can't defend ourselves.
people like you just wouldn't get it.
you used to get it, but not anymore.
Seattle is confirmed for the last hope for scandinavians.
>>56810777
>end military today
>tomorrow china and russia declare war
OP you are fucking retarded.
>>56810777
Cant stop laughing every time I see this SO FUCKING SERIOUS mutant seagul.
>>56814043
>At this point you're just formalizing the civilian reserves; it's a good idea regardless, but it's nothing new or ideologically profound.
Its cheaper to have every civilian knowing how to operate a gun than it is to maintain a national guard or state reserve
>but it's nothing new or ideologically profound.
I was trying to pull from Switzerland and Scandinavian countries.
>>56814179
Don't be harshing on our bird, Ivan.
>>56813250
>Because America is the de facto hegemonic power of the world, and attacking us would not only incur military action, but also economic and political sanctions for years to come.
>Except they do, since they ensure that America is at the top of the totem pole. In any case, I don't care if they make my life better or worse, personally, I care because I support my nation.
How in the world does this make your life better? You simply support your nation in a war even though it only benefits the rich and powerful while making you much less safe?
>>56814196
>Its cheaper to have every civilian knowing how to operate a gun than it is to maintain a national guard or state reserve
But it's also less effective; better to have every civilian know how to use a gun, and be able to be mustered (and commanded) within a short period of time, while also maintaining a permanent national guard (and states maintaining their own guard).
Tell me, when the invaders are scaling the walls, do you want every guard to be in the barracks still throwing their armor on?
>>56814235
>How in the world does this make your life better?
By keeping America at the top, so too is the dollar the most important currency, and anyone with an inkling of economics can see why this is a good thing.
In any case, like I said, my life is not the priority here. I support my nation in peace and war because she is my nation, and I will do everything in my power to preserve her.
I may not agree with every decision the bureaucrats and politicians make, but so long as the state seeks to defend the nation as a whole and provides an environment in which the citizenry can prosper, I will continue to support it.
>much less safe
But it doesn't, and you're a paranoid fool if you truly believe this.
>>56814365
>But it's also less effective; better to have every civilian know how to use a gun, and be able to be mustered
Indeed but with a nuclear deterrent it is unlikely that anyone is going to step foot on american soil. The whole point of a civilian militia is to further that deterrent.
>>56814179
Russia, why did you turn your back on glorious Communism? =(
>>56814680
Ahmm.... Did we had one? We had socialism-oligarchy with primitive capitalism parts and thats shit. If you read some books - communism is a word to define a dream.
>>56814673
>The whole point of a civilian militia is to further that deterrent.
Then why not go further and also have a professional state and national guard, as well as a national military?
Having a civilian militia and having a professional standing military are not mutually exclusive.
>>56814812
Can't we have another try, you already own half of London?
Me, you and the Chinese! It'll be a right laugh!
>>56812190
isn't that a big part of metal gear
