View Single Post
  #194  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:25 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,789
Well, I don't think the international order of the 20th century would have been all that comprehensible at all. The results of winning the Second World War would surely have pleased the Framers. I am one hundred percent certain they still would have found the existence of a massive standing army very frightening. They wouldn't have really understood the modern American attitude towards armies at all, really. Americans in the late 18th century did not, generally speaking, see soldiers as heroes, or armies as forces of good.

Of course, the realities of modern war are different than they were in 1789. Modern wars are fast and have a degree of individual lethality that changes the relationship between economy and military. The weapons needed by even a smaller industrialized nation's armed forces are complex and expensive beyond the imagining of Washington, Napoleon, or Wellington. Having al all-militia army that bring a lot of the guns with them is just not a thing that will work for pitched battles in 2019; Cletus isn't showing up for reserve duty in his own Abrams or Raptor. So the vision of having little to no professional army at all is just not realistic now, even if you and I agree the US armed services doesn't need to be as bloated as it is.

But... the other side of that is to call the Second Amendment into question. Its purpose was primarily the defense of the USA against foreign aggression, and personal firearms are no longer in any way part of American preparation for war.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!