500 Billion A Year For Defense?

Civilians running around with sidearms and rifles are not remotely a replacement for professional soldiers.

 

Again, what does Obama have to do with a contractor making hundreds of millions of dollars in profit off of poisoning servicemembers and their families?

 

When was the last time someone shot down a jet fighter at modern operational altitude with a rifle?

The idea of militia defending a country when out the door when modern aircraft came in.

 

I am not sure what you mean; organized militia must be well regulated.

 

Well regulated militia may be issued their Arms.

 

No one is issuing militia with Patriot PAC-3’s.

 

Considering that there are virtually no examples of "militia" defeating professional soldiers...….

 

we don't seem to need them for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

The US won against British.

 

Almost all the battles won by the Continental Army were won by regulars. Relentlessly trained by von Steuben and other professionals. The occasions where militia played a major role (like Cowpens) they were part of a force very heavy in regulars.

 

That extra coverage can make all of the difference in that extreme case.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; and, should organize and muster sufficient militia to ensure the domestic tranquility of our free State.

 

And who is going to protect U.S. interests overseas? Or ensure the sea lanes remain secure? Both of which are vital to the U.S. economy.

 

our welfare clause is General and we have a commerce clause. Why is Capitalism so difficult for the right wing?

 

Only one of those is an actual war, and in case you haven't noticed, the militias we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc have never been able to secure a major defeat against our professional forces because we have complete air supremacy.

 

Why is Article 1 so difficult for you? Congress has the power to raise Armies.

 

A black hole of capital expenditure that cannot be used on social services for the Poor, back home.

We don't have a general warfare clause, it is a general welfare clause.

New cities or new castles.

 

What is your point? Why does it seem that the right wing believes they can make up any power for the common defense but nothing for the general welfare which may actually benefit the Poor.

 

Congress has the power to declare war, which they did in the form of an AUMF.

 

Why do you think I'm rightwing? I have on this forum numerous times said that a Democrat Congress should form an "Army of Health" and implement national healthcare that way.

 

We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. The right wing cannot be serious about their warfare-State economy with tax cut economics.

 

We already have a uniformed federal health service. We need a comprehensive, general plan for the general welfare.

 

I mean, I get that you are going to keep repeating that idiotic mantra, but its irrelevant. The Constitution gives Congress the power to make war and they have. They don't need a "general warfare" clause. They have blanket authorization to make war in Article 1 Section 8.

 

War on what and for what purpose under our form of Capitalism. Congress does not have the power to maintain a warfare-State economy with tax cut economics. They have to be more capitally serious than alleging a crises and demanding a tax cut.

 

We do not have any interests overseas.

As for sea lanes, that's up to the UN.

 

No it isn't. and how can you say we don't have any interests overseas? The U.S. has literally trillions of dollars in overseas trade. Millions of American citizens are overseas at any given time. Those are interests.