"National Walk-Out Day"

[*PhilHos*]

(03-20-2018, 09:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How I read it was he wasn't talking about your average misdemeanor guy, but your violent felons such as gang members, meth dealers etc.

Yes, it seems clear to anyone not arguing with SSF, that he was clearly talking about gang members and other similar "criminals". 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2018, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: If Fred says the Framers" did not envision a standing army,"

and you ask "What was George Washington in charge of during the Revolution?"

Then you were just wondering if an army was an army, not whether it was a standing army?

Because if Washington was in charge of an army that would refute a claim that the Framers did not envision a standing army?

It's rather simple logic.  The future United States required an army to expel the English from the country.  Therefore, the possibility of needing an army is well established in the minds of all the Framers.  Now, if you want to argue whether they wanted a standing army, that's a completely different story.  To claim that they couldn't even envision ever having one is illogical to the point of absurdity.

(03-20-2018, 09:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the founders did envision the possibility of a standing army, and they placed checks on it by putting the President in charge, but requiring Congress to pay for it every two years.

Wait, how dare you use common sense and logic!

(03-20-2018, 09:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is impossible for me to know what SSF is saying because he never explained exactly what he meant.  All he said was that "criminals" getting killed did not count as murders for his purposes.

If anything I said was wrong he can correct me with additional information. 

Or else he can just make some more meaningless snarky comments that explain nothing.

Odd that you and your little cabal are the only ones who ever have this comprehension problem.

(03-20-2018, 09:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How I read it was he wasn't talking about your average misdemeanor guy, but your violent felons such as gang members, meth dealers etc.

Ahh, you read it as written.  Perhaps you can draw Fred and his friends a small "how to" book in MS Paint.  

(03-20-2018, 10:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, it seems clear to anyone not arguing with SSF, that he was clearly talking about gang members and other similar "criminals". 

It's hard for me to know how to respond when someone actually reads points made with a critical eye and not with the intent to deliberately skew them so as to avoid the actual point being made, to score cheap points and to devolve the discussion to debating irrelevancies.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'll explain the point in a bit more detail. Murders aren't good, regardless what is used to enact said murder or who is the victim. When we are talking about homicide rates your average citizen is obviously concerned about being the victim, or that a loved one or acquaintance will be a victim. When I point out that of the ~12k killed a year a very large percentage of those killed are criminals killed by other criminals and that ~1.5k are criminals killed by police I am showing how these fears are even more unfounded then it would otherwise appear. Let's be generous and say that the two categories above account for half of the 12k (and I believe that is being very generous). This leaves 6,000 murder victims via gunfire per year in a nation of 330,000,000.

In other words, 0.0018 of the population not involved in serious criminal activity will be murdered with a firearm every year. Yet this dominates our news cycle. I wonder why?

[*PhilHos*]

(03-20-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's hard for me to know how to respond when someone actually reads points made with a critical eye and not with the intent to deliberately skew them so as to avoid the actual point being made, to score cheap points and to devolve the discussion to debating irrelevancies.  

Giving rep works for me.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-20-2018, 01:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Giving rep works for me.

That's just embarrassing.  

[*PhilHos*]

(03-20-2018, 01:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's just embarrassing.  

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 09:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the founders did envision the possibility of a standing army, and they placed checks on it by putting the President in charge, but requiring Congress to pay for it every two years.

As I mentioned above, there was a debate about this. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no president. And most state representatives apparently wanted no standing army, especially after they believed the Continental Army threatened to march on Congress in '83. Also, there was a terrific money problem. The US was in debt. Keeping armies was expensive. Taxes were hard to raise. States did not want a Federal army which could turn against a state, etc. State militia could handle small threats like native Americans. No worries about an invasion from Europe.

A few people, like Hamilton, "envisioned" a standing army, and Washington definitely wanted one (and a military academy too) but were voted down (at least twice) in '83.  What changed this, in part, was difficulty finishing off the separation of territory and forts from Great Britain. I can't remember the particulars now, but some British in North American forts disputed the US interpretation of how/whether those forts were to be turned over to the U.S.  And the U.S virtually had no army to back up their interpretation. So a small standing army of some 500 soldiers and some artillerists was provided for in '84.  Still under the AC and no president yet. In '87, Madison and Adams were still railing against the idea of a standing army as the first step on a slippery slope to "enslavement" when they opened the process to frame a Constitution with an Executive power.

PS what is your source for placing the president in charge as a "check"?  Article II of the Constitution makes him commander in chief, but so far as I know, that was a worry, not a check. Necessary but concerning.

PPS Washington had all kinds of problems keeping the Continental Army together precisely because it was not a standing Army and had such begrudged backing from Congress.  That horrible 8-year experience informed his push for a standing army. Part of the argument for that, too, was that the US was now responsible for "territorial" acquisitions which belonged to the government and no state in particular, and so no state could be responsible for defending them--especially in the South and along the Northwest territories.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's hard for me to know how to respond when someone actually reads points made with a critical eye and not with the intent to deliberately skew them so as to avoid the actual point being made, to score cheap points and to devolve the discussion to debating irrelevancies.  

Save.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather simple logic.  The future United States required an army to expel the English from the country.  Therefore, the possibility of needing an army is well established in the minds of all the Framers.  Now, if you want to argue whether they wanted a standing army, that's a completely different story.  To claim that they couldn't even envision ever having one is illogical to the point of absurdity.

1. Well, that was the issue Fred raised, material to his point--whether the Framers wanted a standing army.  He was not claiming they could never envision just having an army. He  was claiming that originally they did not want a standing army.  And for the Framers the distinction between "standing" and reserve was a very important, material to questions of self defense and how it was to be provided for.  The answers can change drastically, according to whether a country has a standing army or not. Until 1784, they could certainly "envision" one--and the majority did not like what they saw in that vision.

2. My next point I think supports some of yours. It is precisely worry about a standing army--not just "an army"--which is used to justify the right to bear arms.  In Federalist No 41, Madison says that European powers keep guns out of the hands of their citizens so their standing armies cannot be challenged. In the new U.S., 100,000 armed civilians are a "check" to that potential power.  So armed citizenry are part of the package sold to make a standing army acceptable, so long as it is small.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-20-2018, 07:04 PM)Dill Wrote: As I mentioned above, there was a debate about this. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no president. And most state representatives apparently wanted no standing army, especially after they believed the Continental Army threatened to march on Congress in '83. Also, there was a terrific money problem. The US was in debt. Keeping armies was expensive. Taxes were hard to raise. States did not want a Federal army which could turn against a state, etc. State militia could handle small threats like native Americans. No worries about an invasion from Europe.

A few people, like Hamilton, "envisioned" a standing army, and Washington definitely wanted one (and a military academy too) but were voted down (at least twice) in '83.  What changed this, in part, was difficulty finishing off the separation of territory and forts from Great Britain. I can't remember the particulars now, but some British in North American forts disputed the US interpretation of how/whether those forts were to be turned over to the U.S.  And the U.S virtually had no army to back up their interpretation. So a small standing army of some 500 soldiers and some artillerists was provided for in '84.  Still under the AC and no president yet. In '87, Madison and Adams were still railing against the idea of a standing army as the first step on a slippery slope to "enslavement" when they opened the process to frame a Constitution with an Executive power.

PS what is your source for placing the president in charge as a "check"?  Article II of the Constitution makes him commander in chief, but so far as I know, that was a worry, not a check. Necessary but concerning.

PPS Washington had all kinds of problems keeping the Continental Army together precisely because it was not a standing Army and had such begrudged backing from Congress.  That horrible 8-year experience informed his push for a standing army. Part of the argument for that, too, was that the US was now responsible for "territorial" acquisitions which belonged to the government and no state in particular, and so no state could be responsible for defending them--especially in the South and along the Northwest territories.

No source. They made the President CINC, but they made sure Congress had to agree to fund it every two years. Nobody had complete control over the military.

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 09:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No source. They made the President CINC, but they made sure Congress had to agree to fund it every two years. Nobody had complete control over the military.

Thanks for the response. Also  I misspoke. I meant to say there was no eecutive branch under the Articles. They did have 8 presidents serving one year term, but they had little power.No one remembers them.