[bwaldrep]

Again with the sweeping characterizations. Why do you assume that every single person in the armed forces is corrupt?

As someone with a brother and several close friends in the military, this attitude is disheartening. You are free to believe that the leadership or even large swaths of the military is corrupt, but you cannot honestly state that no one is putting themselves in front of bullets for your rights. I have personally met several who repeatedly face bullets and IEDs because of their belief that they are protecting the rights and safety of civilians back home. You may believe their actions are naive or misguided, but that doesn't mean that they are all mindless drones motivated by purely selfish reasons.

[toomuchtodo]

As arjie stated, I don't think they're corrupt. I'm saying they're not serving my interests as a US citizen. My liberty isn't in peril, and if it were, I'd be the first to sign up with BDUs and rifle in hand (my brother served as a Marine).

As I said, no one is standing in front of bullets for my rights. I'll stand in front of bullets for my own rights thank you, when the time actually arrives that my rights are threatened.

[lolwutf]

Well, technically speaking if there isn't anyone signed up with BDUs and a rifle in hand, then your liberty would be in peril. I mean, if the US government and her lands were just up for whoever wanted to call dibs, I'd take it.

That said, it stands to reason that the reason why your liberty isn't imminently in peril is because someone is already signed up and out there defending it.

To restate everything in broad terms: there's lots of people out in the world that don't like us. Your liberty is always in peril.

Do you want a totally anarchistic society, perhaps? I, for one, don't.

[scott_karana]

You make it sound like America doesn't have a large, well-off and well armed populace, with the backing of heavy industrial plants that can tool up for war.

I'm not saying America should have no armed forces, of course, but don't you think they're a little excessive?

[jessaustin]

I mean, if the US government and her lands were just up for whoever wanted to call dibs, I'd take it.

I'd like to see you try. You might just end up with a deeper appreciation for the Second Amendment.

[205guy]

Wow, just, wow. You've swallowed the war hawks' propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

[lolwutf]

scott_karana - What you're describing is true, but is closer to anarchy (which I'm not quite an advocate for).

Do I think the military forces have grown to an excessive level? Yes.

[cobrausn]

No, it's not. It's advocating what the founders originally intended, which was a well-armed militia that obviates the need for an Army. In time of war (on American soil) they would organize like an army to fight off invaders. They did advocate for a Navy, however, because it was (and I suppose still is) necessary for the establishment of free trade routes between nations.

I am former military, as an aside, and once found the notion of not having an Army pretty silly, but the notion has grown on me slightly.

[bwaldrep]

Thank you for clarifying. While I still disagree, I can respect your opinion.

[arjie]

I think he isn't claiming that they don't believe it. He's saying that they're not doing what they think. I can fervently believe that I'm protecting American lives by slaughtering chickens in a yard, but that won't make it true.

[lolwutf]

Thanks for your family's service!

('family', because everyone is uneasy when a loved one is away on duty)