-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Soldiers used to patrol school campuses in Killeen, Texas
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
steveh_131
Grandmaster
Source?
Some quotes, not all from the framers:
-- Thomas Jefferson
-- Daniel Webster
-- Ronald Reagan
"There should no longer be any confusion about the liberal, radical and conservative positions on the draft. Liberals favor it, but either want to make it random in its selection or extend it to social as well as military service. Radicals want to end it or turn it to social service. They are not against compulsion. They are just against the fact, it seems to me, that the compulsion in this case is being used as part of an effort against their current heroes, the Viet Cong. Conservatives want to end the draft–period. They do not want to extend it to any other form of service... Between the liberal and conservative positions lies the world of difference that marks the two philosophies. The liberal position is based solidly upon the notion that every form of compulsion and every sacrifice of the individual may be justified in the name of "society." The conservative position is based solidly upon the notion that man’s most fundamental right and responsibility is to live his own life."
- Barry Goldwater, New Guard, May 1967 issue
"The case for abolishing conscription and recruiting our armed forces by voluntary methods seems to me overwhelming. One of the greatest advances in human freedom was the commutation of taxes in kind to taxes in money. We have reverted to a barbarous custom. It is past time that we regain our heritage."
- Milton Friedman, Why Not a Volunteer Army?, 1967
"Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to conscript citizens. The power to raise armies is not a power to force people into the armies. Lesser forms of the draft, such as compulsory 'national service' are based on the same unacceptable premise. Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the plaything of government."
- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. 56Against Military Conscription | Ron Paul
A Draft Violates Individual Liberty | Ron Paul
"The most important reason to oppose a draft is that it violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude." - Ron Paul
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I see a few different issues which are being amalgamated but need separate treatment:
1. Liberty and compulsion, by definition, are mutually exclusive.
2. I have no doubt in my mind that in the event of true national peril, Rambone would be right beside me so long as we were still physically able to stand with a rifle.
3. Conscripts generally aren't worth a f**k for anything in combat other than as cannon fodder used as a diversion from the effective troops. Self-motivation is a very powerful force which conscripts generally don't have.
4. Incorporating training compatible with usefulness in these roles into the educational curriculum would not be a bad thing--after all, knowledge of marksmanship, first aid, fire fighting, and perhaps some field craft are useful, and as previously noted, more useful than playing lacrosse.
I see no reason why the desired general results cannot be achieved under voluntary circumstances--not voluntary in the sense that paying income tax is supposedly voluntary.
1. Liberty and compulsion, by definition, are mutually exclusive.
2. I have no doubt in my mind that in the event of true national peril, Rambone would be right beside me so long as we were still physically able to stand with a rifle.
3. Conscripts generally aren't worth a f**k for anything in combat other than as cannon fodder used as a diversion from the effective troops. Self-motivation is a very powerful force which conscripts generally don't have.
4. Incorporating training compatible with usefulness in these roles into the educational curriculum would not be a bad thing--after all, knowledge of marksmanship, first aid, fire fighting, and perhaps some field craft are useful, and as previously noted, more useful than playing lacrosse.
I see no reason why the desired general results cannot be achieved under voluntary circumstances--not voluntary in the sense that paying income tax is supposedly voluntary.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
And how in the hell would our government ever pay for a military 10+ times the size it is now? That many more taxpayers will be taken from those paying the bills. I'm sure our GDP will never notice it.
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
For every conscription, a tax must be levied.
McKinney19D
Plinker
So, no one still wants to talk about how there were soldiers from a signal battalion? Please refer to my post on page 8. Thank you.
I read your post. I chalked you up as another person who doesn't care that soldiers are stepping into a law enforcement role.
The battalion is irrelevant. This is about setting precedents, pushing us into new territory, and conditioning the public. Its a slippery slope.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I am not following you. It would be a nightmare trying to pay for a massive expansion of the military. All I am arguing for is replacing soccer and football with something more useful for physical education and letting the military, fire, and police recruiters have a chance to give their spiel. Continue running all the above departments and military organizations exactly as they are with the exception of having potential recruits with a little fundamental training in place of useless sports that will potentially help them in the future regardless of whether or not they choose to join up with any of the above.
Militia Acts of 1792 (text)
United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 28 - Wikisource, the free online library
United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33 - Wikisource, the free online library
---------------------------------------
Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power.......
- provide for the common Defence....
- To declare War, .....
- To raise and support Armies, ....
- To provide and maintain a Navy;.....
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;.....
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;......
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;......
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.......
Findings of Arver, et al v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
(1) The constitutional language allowing Congress to raise armies permitted a compulsory draft, since Congress must have the power to procure men by any means for those armies.
(2) All nations as attributes of sovereignty have the right to conscript.
(3) The English had compelled military service throughout their history.
(4) The colonies had also used conscription into the militia.
(5) The Continental Congress' lack of power to raise and control its own army was one of the reasons for the formation of the new Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of War James Monroe (incidentally, who later became the last president who was a founding father and framer) in 1814 had proposed a plan for conscription.
Last edited:
Trooper
Shooter
Given that the militia is the pool from which we draw the military, the police and the fire fighters, it would make sense to have a "well regulated" population that is qualified to serve, if needed. Thus would it not be smarter to have the military involved in how kids are raised? Or even military academies ran by the National Guard for kids from 12 to 18?
As it sits, most of the kids (ages 17 to 35) are so unfit for service that they could NEVER be enlisted. Too stupid, too fat, too drugged out, too many felons. Over 74% are that messed up. And only 5% can meet standards.
The Supreme Court within a decade said that it was constitutional for the government to detain "defective" human beings and forcibly sterilize them. It loves to defecate on the constitution and the principles of individual liberty. This case was no different.
The court started with a conclusion and attempts to justify the ends using whatever means necessary. The language for involuntary servitude simply does not exist in the constitution. The court is legislating from the bench in an bad way.
That seems highly irrelevant when weighing constitutionality.
It's OK since the king does it? This is an embarrassing defense. I can't believe they wrote this in an official court opinion.
And the colonies violated their citizens in a number of other ways. This is not a constitutional defense.
But they failed to include conscription in the new constitution.
Armies can be raised, organized, armed, disciplined, trained, and supported using voluntarily soldiers. Demanding service from unwilling citizens, who purportedly have inalienable rights, is a wholly separate power which was never stated in the constitution.
The court in 1918 not only justified its position based on words that DO NOT EXIST, but it also ignored words that DO EXIST in the constitution.
"No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
IGNORED BY THE COURT.
IGNORED BY THE COURT.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
DISMISSED IN ONE SENTENCE.
DISMISSED IN ONE SENTENCE.
Please provide the definition of 'well regulated', and provide a citation to the source that the framers intended it to be such.
Smarter? Possibly. Though I'm leery of turning over my child over to the military for indoctrination. Its bad enough the public school teachers attempt to brainwash the kids now.
Standards have changed over the years as well. During the Viet Nam conflict, the high school dropout could always find employment by enlisting. Boot and Butterball corrected problems with that of being overweight. Drug use was essentially ignored, and if it became a problem, a court martial was convened.....and having a felony conviction didn't mean much to disqualify a company rifleman.
I even recall a few years ago, for a short time during the military being over stretched around the world, enlistment standards were modified to meet manpower needs.
Last edited:
Yep. Courts.....as well as the other branches of government make bad decisions all the time. Though occasionally, they make good ones too. So how is this relevant to the argument at hand?
Wrong. Here is a clear reference to such:
The means to assure an existence is irrelevant?
It was the law of the land under the previous English government. English law still has a great effect upon American law today.
Then look to 10A.
Thus:
Again:
You're presuming that conscription was defined as involuntary servitude, rather than that of a duty.
You're probably right, except for the fact that the Framers never intended that everything be written down within the document. Some things just never occurred to them as an issue. Thus is the reason why there are checks and balances to hash things out.
Depends on what your values are. If your goal is to develop an obedient collectivist society; if the strength and fitness of a citizen is more important than his freedom; if you favor an all-powerful central government having complete sovereignty over the people; if inalienable rights are non-existent to you, then your ideas would appear to be reeeeal smart.
A society that values individual rights would be disgusted at the idea.
And what happens to parents who don't want their children indoctrinated with nationalistic dogma? Do they have daddy issues, if they don't want the government to play "daddy"?
I was kind of wondering the same thing. The court has been trampling our rights for well over a century. The appeal to authority doesn't change my opinion, and I think they were wrong in their interpretation.
Involuntary servitude is not a power granted to the Federal government. The language does not exist. Population counting methods notwithstanding.
Assure an existence? Prepare to have your mind blown. There are countries that exist without conscription and some without a military.
List of countries without armed forces
List of countries with and without mandatory military service
And yes - the argument is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the matter.
The inspiration for law is one thing, using it sustain constitutionality is another.
I don't see any Federal powers to enslave in the 10th Amendment.
The definition of involuntary servitude looks identical to conscription. The two are indiscernible.
Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953.
It includes any "means of compulsion . . . sufficient in kind and degree to subject a person having the same general station in life as the alleged victims to believe they had no reasonable means of escape and no choice except to remain in the service of the employer." 487 U.S. 931
The framers had the foresight to codify the individual's right to never be deprived of liberty without due process. The checks and balances have all failed.
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I can't find it now, but someone raised the question of what 'well regulated' means. At the time, it meant that it was in good working order. Likewise, the power to regulate interstate commerce was the authority to make it work right, not to control it. Usage of the words 'regulate' and 'regulation' have been greatly twisted in the last century or so.
This is why I so strongly oppose any .gov-sponsored redefinition of language. This came up in a particularly contentions thread regarding gay marriage. My position is that anyone should be able to join their worldly fortunes with whomever they choose, my personal belief that homosexuality is morally wrong notwithstanding. That said, I have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage' which has been a heterosexual phenomenon throughout history in every culture of which I am aware.
Some people thought I was insane for holding the danger of allowing the government to redefine language as my central concern and argument. This is yet another example (i.e., regulation). Another fine example is the attempt to nullify the Second Amendment by first incorrectly imposing the introductory clause on the operative clause and then redefining 'militia' which legally is every able-bodied adult citizen by insisting that this grants the National Guard the right to arms.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is meaningless if we let its domestic enemies redefine its contents into something it clearly was never intended to be.
This is why I so strongly oppose any .gov-sponsored redefinition of language. This came up in a particularly contentions thread regarding gay marriage. My position is that anyone should be able to join their worldly fortunes with whomever they choose, my personal belief that homosexuality is morally wrong notwithstanding. That said, I have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage' which has been a heterosexual phenomenon throughout history in every culture of which I am aware.
Some people thought I was insane for holding the danger of allowing the government to redefine language as my central concern and argument. This is yet another example (i.e., regulation). Another fine example is the attempt to nullify the Second Amendment by first incorrectly imposing the introductory clause on the operative clause and then redefining 'militia' which legally is every able-bodied adult citizen by insisting that this grants the National Guard the right to arms.
The bottom line is that the Constitution is meaningless if we let its domestic enemies redefine its contents into something it clearly was never intended to be.
Wrong, perhaps. Though again, its still the law.
Involuntary servitude was a power granted to the states, and permissible for the states under the Constitution, at the time it was written.
Yep. Agreed. Though the argument in many cases is disingenuous. One has to use the list and keep it in context when making such statements.
Oh, like the Magna Carte? How about the 10 Commandments?
As stated above, involuntary servitude was a power granted to the states, and permissible for the states under the Constitution, at the time it was written.
You're confusing slavery, again, to that of protecting and defending one's country, again.
Due process has failed in many instances, but I still fail to identify how calling men into military service to protect one's country can be reasonably seen as you classify it.
So I guess the only question being: How do you propose to mitigate invasion and insurrection, if a viable means to elicit manpower and other resources isn't available?
Last edited:
Trooper
Shooter
The intention of those who wrote the constitution was that the people, ie the males (ages 17 to 45) would be prepared to serve if called. Thus well trained in weapons skills (gooding hunting skills would have been a nice touch). Plus the assumption that they maintained their health, kept in good physical conditioning. And that they were self disciplined (didn't abuse alcohol, kept their marriage vows, etc). Well regulated really seemed to be focused on the individual imposing regulations (self discipline) on himself as a means of being prepared to serve in the military if ever needed. Or even to be able to fight fires or be in the posse. There was that assumption that it was the individual's responsibility to be prepared.
These days few males in our society are prepared to even work let alone be called on to serve.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- manifest destiny
- DoggyDaddy
- printcraft
- mbkintner
- Titanium_Frost
- Emerson Dambiggins
- dougha5
- DRob
- Mice54
- thunderchicken
- Indy574
- AndyF
- hopper68
- El Conquistador
- Alamo
- x34822
- klausm
- Brad69
- knutty
- krvincen
- Cameramonkey
- Wolfhound
- mospeada
- Magyars
- Larry!!!
- zspeed130
- spencer rifle
- PGRChaplain
- Jndturner317
- flint stonez
- Amattern
- StukaJU87
- Dookie
- Lost Californian
- MrHank
- bowhunter_1978
- loudgroove
- profjeremy
- indiucky
- crookcountygo
- pokersamurai
- KoopaKGB
- medavis428@
- edwea
- JBLee
- K9stang
- steveIU
- Bluehazemay
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- caulfieldian
