SCOTUS Allows Sandy Hook families to Sue

[aztek]

human body has several sphincters, which one is in question here?

[toast]

17 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Yeah! Seems Germany did just that in 1938 when they confiscated all guns and knives registered to Jews. And well the world knows what happened after that.

I didnt talked about confiscation, genius. But anyway, if you bring in German history, you should be aware of the whole matter. Its correct that Jews, communists and opponents of the regime in general got disarmed by the nazis in 1933 but the weapon laws were changed in a way that all nazi officials, down to the Hitlerjugend, were allowed to carry guns without permission needed. This was done to strengthen the system from the inside and from the very basis. Would you say thats a kind of democratic action in any way?

[toast]

30 minutes ago, aztek said:

especially funny when a German says that to a jew, lmao

How can you know if I´m Jewish or not, Sherlock?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 minutes ago, toast said:

I didnt talked about confiscation, genius. But anyway, if you bring in German history, you should be aware of the whole matter. Its correct that Jews, communists and opponents of the regime in general got disarmed by the nazis in 1933 but the weapon laws were changed in a way that all nazi officials, down to the Hitlerjugend, were allowed to carry guns without permission needed. This was done to strengthen the system from the inside and from the very basis. Would you say thats a kind of democratic action in any way?

Yeah the Wiemar Republic probably didn't have gun confiscation in mind when they allowed German citizens to once again own guns for hunting purposes and instituted gun registration I believe in 1928.

[aztek]

1 minute ago, toast said:

I didnt talked about confiscation, genius. But anyway, if you bring in German history, you should be aware of the whole matter. Its correct that Jews, communists and opponents of the regime in general got disarmed by the nazis in 1933 but the weapon laws were changed in a way that all nazi officials, down to the Hitlerjugend, were allowed to carry guns without permission needed. This was done to strengthen the system from the inside and from the very basis. Would you say thats a kind of democratic action in any way?

that is because you are not a genius,  but he is, he knows registration is a first part of confiscation.  and you fail to see clear signs,  remember a history and connect the dots,  

so they could gas\kill millions with no resistance, it does resemble democratic process i see here, you have a point there.

[aztek]

4 minutes ago, toast said:

How can you know if I´m Jewish or not, Sherlock?

i know you are not, this isn't our first rodeo, but i'm glad you have no objections to my points that are actually on topic

Edited November 15, 2019 by aztek

[toast]

44 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That is the purpose of the 2A, to restrict government from taking guns from the people. 

Known already.

Quote

We have law enforcement to protect the individual.  The risk assessment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government and *ALL* government become tyrannical over time. 

Sad statistics attest that the risk assessment failed as the existing system isnt even capable to protect people from tyrannical actions by tyrannical people within the population.

Quote

Under Obama, our government lurched toward tyranny and Trump has pulled us back a little.

Blah-

[RavenHawk]

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You asked what was an official weapon as if there was no such thing.

No I didn’t.  I asked what is the *definition* of an official weapon?  You’ll find out that it is more artificial than actual, simply because anything can be a weapon.

 

It's a fact that weapons are classified under chapter 93 based on their principal use.

Well that sounds like any secondary uses are irrelevant?

 

Hammers, made of metal, are classified under chapter 82.

So hammers can’t be used to kill?

 

The creativity you are trying to conflate is still not effective.

If it is capable of killing one or two, then it is highly effective and that is the vast majority of murders that occur, not mass killings.

 

You simply cannot emulate an event like Christchurch without an object with a primary use of killing.

For one, that was a rare event as all mass killings are.  Cars and bombs are nearly as prolific (as we have seen) and if guns are removed, then these other means will get more effective.

[toast]

6 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Yeah the Wiemar Republic probably didn't have gun confiscation in mind when they allowed German citizens to once again own guns for hunting purposes and instituted gun registration I believe in 1928.

You talked about the Nazis so the Weimarer Republik isnt relevant to your initial comment.

[aztek]

6 minutes ago, toast said:

Known already.

Sad statistics attest that the risk assessment failed as the existing system isnt even capable to protect people from tyrannical actions by tyrannical people within the population.

Blah-

it  has never  been able, nor it ever tried,  people need to protect themselves, that is why we have the right to own guns, gvmnt can't even stop drug flow into prisons,  and you think it will be able to protect someone?? get real

Edited November 15, 2019 by aztek

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 minute ago, toast said:

You talked about the Nazis so the Weimarer Republik isnt relevant to your initial comment.

Of course it is. I know full well the Nazi's didn't initiate gun registration but the gun registration was there for them to use.

Quote

I didnt talked about confiscation, genius. But anyway, if you bring in German history, you should be aware of the whole matter.

 

[Golden Duck]

16 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No I didn’t.  I asked what is the *definition* of an official weapon?  You’ll find out that it is more artificial than actual, simply because anything can be a weapon.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that sounds like any secondary uses are irrelevant?

 

 

 

 

 

So hammers can’t be used to kill?

 

 

 

 

 

If it is capable of killing one or two, then it is highly effective and that is the vast majority of murders that occur, not mass killings.

 

 

 

 

 

For one, that was a rare event as all mass killings are.  Cars and bombs are nearly as prolific (as we have seen) and if guns are removed, then these other means will get more effective.

 

Artificial or not the "Brussels Tariff" exists and is used; and, goods are classified on there principal use. That's a definition that's effective.

The catalyst for this SCOTUS judgement was one of those rare events that can't be emulated by your trusty Sidchrome.

Maybe, they can install bullet bollards to stop shootings like they stop vehicles.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Golden Duck

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

A sphincter named RavenHawk.

At least I got you to think for once.

 

You asked what is "officially a weapon" and I told you. 

Again, no, I did not.  I queried what the definition was, not what you interpret it as.  There is no device whose primary function is to kill.  Our vocal fold’s primary function is not to speak but through thousands of years, we learned how to use them to make complex sounds.

 

I don't care for your ****ing word games, troll.

Don’t be projecting your personality onto me.  Your idiosyncrasies is too heavy of a burden.

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, toast said:

Known already.

Evidently, it is something that still needs to be stated over and over again.

 

Sad statistics attest that the risk assessment failed as the existing system isnt even capable to protect people from tyrannical actions by tyrannical people within the population.

I don’t think you quite have it.  Tyranny is an inappropriate adjective to describe the people.  Tyranny refers to a government and the risk assessment is that every government will threaten the Rights of its people over time and every time it has taken away the guns, the people are in fear of their government.  The Constitution limits what our government can do to the people.  The 2A clearly states: “shall not be infringed”.  That is a limitation on government.  That means that bans and confiscations are not allowed.

[Agent0range]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

that is because you are not a genius,  but he is, he knows registration is a first part of confiscation. 

Oh. My. God.  I better hide my car keys.  It's been registered since I bought it!!!  How will I get to work?

I ain't worried about confiscation.  And Then will be on my corner fending off the big bad government.

[Kenemet]

9 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And?  It doesn’t matter what it’s primary use is.  It’s that it can be used as a weapon to kill.

There are any number of secondary uses for a gun.  Give a gun to a Redneck and there ain’t telling what they’ll come up with.

If its primary use is not as a weapon, please tell me what it is.  And I think there's a difference between throwing a projectile (like an egg) and shooting a bullet.  

And do tell me some legitimate secondary uses for a gun... not novel uses but things that everyone knows.  For instance, everyone knows knives can be used to cut up meat and vegetables because there's a zillion cooking shows.  We also know that they can be used to carve toys because there's leagues of woodworkers.  

Speaking as a redneck Texan, I'm not aware of common alternate uses for guns.  They're only for shooting things (destruction.)

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Artificial or not the "Brussels Tariff" exists and is used; and, goods are classified on there principal use. That's a definition that's effective.

And what are you going to do if somebody is gouging out your guts with a butter knife?  You going to let them do it while telling them that according to the Harmonized System, that is not the primary function of the butter knife?

 

The catalyst for this SCOTUS judgement was one of those rare events that can't be emulated by your trusty Sidchrome.

What is that supposed to mean?  I know what the reference to sidchrome is but it doesn’t make sense?  The actions of SCOTUS are clear and undeniable.  This issue will be dealt with through the courts.  It’ll have a proper paper trail.  All the evidence will be weighed and all the witnesses will be heard, unlike what the House is doing.

 

Maybe, they can install bullet bollards to stop shootings like they stop vehicles.

Or maybe the Left can stop breaking up the family.  Enough of this toxic masculinity and passing out participation awards.  Raise the bar and expect personal responsibility.  Start there and it’ll begin to reduce the number of shootings.

[Golden Duck]

45 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And what are you going to do if somebody is gouging out your guts with a butter knife?  You going to let them do it while telling them that according to the Harmonized System, that is not the primary function of the butter knife?

 

 

 

 

 

What is that supposed to mean?  I know what the reference to sidchrome is but it doesn’t make sense?  The actions of SCOTUS are clear and undeniable.  This issue will be dealt with through the courts.  It’ll have a proper paper trail.  All the evidence will be weighed and all the witnesses will be heard, unlike what the House is doing.

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe the Left can stop breaking up the family.  Enough of this toxic masculinity and passing out participation awards.  Raise the bar and expect personal responsibility.  Start there and it’ll begin to reduce the number of shootings.

 

Stand up Raven.  Stand up.

There was a sub-thread looking to draw equivalency between a hammer and an AR-15 which culminated in the assertion that a firearm was officially a weapon and a hammer wasn't. 

Despite you being a purported export on tariffs you asked what "that definition" was. The Brussel Tariff provides a perfectly suitable definition to differentiate between a hammer and a weapon. And, as the interpretation is stipulated by the government it also satisfies the stipulation of being official.

You asked for it you got it; but, you still build straw men and implement some tortured semantics.

A better example is the case of the Hitmans Manual.  That case had implications to free speech. There are limits to the protection of the first amendment.

You can't own a Warthog or a nuke.  The charge before SCOTUS was that an AR15 is too dangerous for the public. Or any other weapon that can kill dozens in minutes.

But you want to introduce the idea that a butter knife is equivalent.  If that's your view, why are you worried? Butter knives don't have serial numbers and there's no proposal for a butter knife registry. 

You're disingenuous with this equivalency. You won't stand by your rhetoric.  You just want your beloved guns.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Golden Duck

[RavenHawk]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

If its primary use is not as a weapon, please tell me what it is.

I do believe that the primary function of a gun is to fire a projectile.  And again, it is up to the operator what they do with that.

 

And I think there's a difference between throwing a projectile (like an egg) and shooting a bullet.  

Yes there is.  A bullet does have a bit more impact than and egg but the same can be said for a moving car.  At close range a bullet and a car are comparable.  It’s called physics.

 

And do tell me some legitimate secondary uses for a gun... not novel uses but things that everyone knows.  For instance, everyone knows knives can be used to cut up meat and vegetables because there's a zillion cooking shows.  We also know that they can be used to carve toys because there's leagues of woodworkers.  

Seriously?  How ‘bout propping up something.  How ‘bout a nut cracker.  How ‘bout a paper weight.  How ‘bout a pry bar.  How ‘bout sculpture.  How ‘bout a planter.  How ‘bout a support bar to let oneself down the inside of a ventilating shaft.  How ‘bout saving lives and protecting property.  Obama wanted to turn all guns into clubs.  It’s said that God created man but Colt made them equal.

 

Speaking as a redneck Texan, I'm not aware of common alternate uses for guns. 

I should just let that stand on its own.  I speak about rednecks affectionately.  I am a problem solver too.  I’ve got paracord and duct tape all over the place.  I’ve got coffee cans full of screws, washers, bolts, and the like.  These secondary uses I just listed were just off the top of my head.  I am able to do that because I have an open mind.

 

They're only for shooting things (destruction.)

Guns are used for many things, including self defense and taming wild territory.  Guns build civilizations.

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Again, no, I did not.  I queried what the definition was, not what you interpret it as.  There is no device whose primary function is to kill.  Our vocal fold’s primary function is not to speak but through thousands of years, we learned how to use them to make complex sounds.

Yes you did liar.  You pretended to be ignorant when you knew full well the link was criticising the advertising of weapons.  You can't let it go.

[toast]

6 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I don’t think you quite have it.  Tyranny is an inappropriate adjective to describe the people.  Tyranny refers to a government and the risk assessment is that every government will threaten the Rights of its people over time and every time it has taken away the guns, the people are in fear of their government.  The Constitution limits what our government can do to the people.  The 2A clearly states: “shall not be infringed”.  That is a limitation on government.  That means that bans and confiscations are not allowed.

I`m quite sure I have it and I fully understand the purpose of 2A. But, 2A is a law thats 232 years old now and maybe had a useful purpose in the 18th century (in the US), when the level development of the civilization and its moral, ethical and democratic standards were ways below today's standards. Based on the facts that 2A is still valid even today (2019) and a very big number of American people still insist in their right related to 2A, it must be assumed that a.) there was, up until today, no further development of the standards valid in 1787 and/or b.) that there is still an option that a tyrannical government could be elected or an existing, democratic elected government could morph into a tyrannical one.

Furthermore, the idea of 2A is based on the assumption that there are 2 forces only: the government and the public. Means, the public is defined as a single, incorporated and unique power. But thats impossible, it never happened to be and it will never happen to be. Nowhere and especially not in the USA. Evaluated logically, the public was given a law thats funded on an idea that dont work. Above all, I have to say that the introduction of 2A was a brilliant strategical tool to keep the public quite and confident.

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is, in my opinion, a shaky one. Maybe the meaning of "shall" is different in English language than in my native tongue because "shall" in my language is meant as a recommendation and not as a specification. As said already, there will never be a united public power. Maybe the knowledge about, by the government, is a reason for the huge military power of the USA which I judge as to be designed and powerful enough to even fight down a domestic revolt which is initiated and performed by 50% of the (armed) public in a very effective fashion.

 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, toast said:

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is, in my opinion, a shaky one. Maybe the meaning of "shall" is different in English language than in my native tongue because "shall" in my language is meant as a recommendation and not as a specification.

That's interesting. In American English it's the opposite. Shall is a directive interchangeable with will, not should.  

[Kenemet]

11 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I do believe that the primary function of a gun is to fire a projectile.  And again, it is up to the operator what they do with that.

Yes there is.  A bullet does have a bit more impact than and egg but the same can be said for a moving car.  At close range a bullet and a car are comparable.  It’s called physics.

That doesn't make sense.  It's not to fire "a projectile" (I could fling a Volvo or an egg from a catapult.  I can't fling anything but a bullet, and a specific one from a gun.  Bullets are designed to kill things.  And trying to compare bullets and cars and eggs doesn't make any sense.  If they were all the same size, physics says that they would have different effects because of the difference in mass and shape.

Bullets (unlike cars and eggs) are designed at any scale to destroy things.

 

Quote

Seriously?  How ‘bout propping up something.  How ‘bout a nut cracker.  How ‘bout a paper weight.  How ‘bout a pry bar.  How ‘bout sculpture.  How ‘bout a planter.  How ‘bout a support bar to let oneself down the inside of a ventilating shaft.  How ‘bout saving lives and protecting property.  Obama wanted to turn all guns into clubs.  It’s said that

Uhm... you own guns and you use them to prop up things and crack nuts?  Or as paper weights?  Or pry bars? (I've used pry bars and was using one yesterday.  I can't see how a pistol or a rifle would have done the job without damaging it beyond repair) 

Or planters (I can't figure out what kind of gun would be used as a planter.) 

And support bar?  Seriously?

I don't see anyone using their valuable guns for these things.  I see the occasional one used as art, but only when it's generally beyond repair or when it's exceptionally valuable.

Yes, you can try to invent uses for them... but that wasn't my point.  I was asking what they're regularly used for besides threatening people and killing things.

Quote

God created man but Colt made them equal.

I disagree.  Having a gun doesn't guarantee you access to a decent job, clean water, or even legal justice (having a lot of money for a good lawyer does, however.)  Nor does someone's having a gun automatically make them equal to me... or my lack of a gun make me inferior to anyone else.

Quote

Guns are used for many things, including self defense and taming wild territory.  Guns build civilizations.

Again, I disagree.  We had civilization long before we had guns (the earliest civilizations began around 3000 BC.  And there's lots of places where territory was claimed and "tamed" and no guns were involved, even in modern times.

[RavenHawk]

9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

There was a sub-thread looking to draw equivalency between a hammer and an AR-15 which culminated in the assertion that a firearm was officially a weapon and a hammer wasn't.

I was making the point (and still am) that it doesn’t matter what is official or not.  A hammer can make you as dead as a gun can.

 

Despite you being a purported export on tariffs you asked what "that definition" was. The Brussel Tariff provides a perfectly suitable definition to differentiate between a hammer and a weapon. And, as the interpretation is stipulated by the government it also satisfies the stipulation of being official.

And again, this is where the term “official” fails.  The BT does not take into consideration how any particular item can be used to kill.  So this definition is artificial.

 

You asked for it you got it; but, you still build straw men and implement some tortured semantics.

You only got yourself.  You think that “official” is some kind of magic word??  If something isn’t official then it can’t be used for some other purpose?  That was what my tongue-in-cheek reference to rednecks was about.  Rednecks are known for using all the wrong tools for something except the one that is “officially” made for a particular task.  And I’m included in that.  I think most people are anyway.  If you need to hammer in a nail, you’re not going to look up a screwdriver in the BT to see if it can be used.  You’re going to go with instinct and experience and what’s handy.

 

A better example is the case of the Hitmans Manual.  That case had implications to free speech. There are limits to the protection of the first amendment.

There are no limits to the Rill of Rights.  And those restrictions already there are unconstitutional (hence Rice vs Paladin 1997).  The 1A states: “or abridging the freedom of speech,”.  There are no exceptions in there.  None, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Bueno-bye.  I talk about this quite a lot.  Rights come with Responsibilities.  Actions have consequences.  I am certainly free to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire.  But that is reneging on my Responsibility and am therefore culpable for the consequences.  Knowing that, why would I walk into a crowded theater and yell fire?  If the expectation is to maintain ones’ Responsibilities then such incidents would become fewer in number.  Then we all can exercise our Rights freely.  Do you understand any of that?

 

You can't own a Warthog or a nuke. 

I would love to have an A10.  She’s one of the most beautiful planes around.  Say a Flight of WM pilots flying A10s running close ground support for a company of Marines.  Let’s just say that you would not want to be on the business end of that.  I know a few people that could build and maintain a fully functional nuke right in their garage.  I’ve joked with them before about that and they say that they would not want the responsibility of maintaining one.

 

The charge before SCOTUS was that an AR15 is too dangerous for the public. Or any other weapon that can kill dozens in minutes.

Too dangerous?  Are the public children?  Progressives think so.  Isn’t that a bit overkill considering that the vast majority of people that are killed by firearms are not done with AR15s in mass shootings?  You do realize that?  You understand you are being a tool?

 

But you want to introduce the idea that a butter knife is equivalent. 

If that is all that is available, then yes, of course.

 

If that's your view, why are you worried? Butter knives don't have serial numbers and there's no proposal for a butter knife registry. 

If you thought it out, when you ban guns, people will select the next easiest to kill with.  Then the government will need to start registering them, then eventually remove them.  Then the people will select the next thing and so it goes.  A butter knife is just an example.  By the time it got down to registering butter knives, our society would have already collapsed.  You cannot stop man from killing.

 

You're disingenuous with this equivalency.

No, you just don’t like the truth.

 

You won't stand by your rhetoric. 

Of course I stand by my rhetoric.  I don’t think you understand the logic. 

 

You just want your beloved guns.

Of course I want my beloved guns but it is the complete package.  I want *ALL* of my Rights secure.  When you attack one, you attack all.  The 1^st and 2^nd seem to always be under attack, especially by domestic enemies.  They are perhaps the most important.  Without these completely intact, we do not have a free country.

[RavenHawk]

17 hours ago, toast said:

I`m quite sure I have it and I fully understand the purpose of 2A. But, 2A is a law thats 232 years old now and maybe had a useful purpose in the 18th century (in the US), when the level development of the civilization and its moral, ethical and democratic standards were ways below today's standards.

No, you really don’t and this statement of yours proves it.  And let me show you why.  It is very simple.  Human nature does not change (certainly not in only 232 years).  It always deteriorates and seeks its lowest form.  We see this in history.  We note it from the Bible.  This is our nature.  This is who we are.  The “level development of the civilization and its moral, ethical and democratic standards” has not changed all that much.  The basics are still the same.  We are still killers.  We continue to be cruel to one another.  Our greed can become extreme.  When you marry that with an unrestricted government such as Socialism, you get tyranny.

 

Our Founding Documents are an analysis of this nature.  It limits the bad and encourages the good.  It appeals to the individual to embrace personal Responsibility so that they can revel in the full exercise of their Rights.  What was written then is still true today and will be true far into the future.  The Constitution does not lay down a set of laws, but a way of governance.  This is the evolution of Man’s civilization.

 

Based on the facts that 2A is still valid even today (2019) and a very big number of American people still insist in their right related to 2A, it must be assumed that a.) there was, up until today, no further development of the standards valid in 1787 and/or

Here’s another point of why you don’t get it.  Development of civilization does advance and change but there will always be that mindless primitive at the core of our existence.  That is what the Founders reminded us about.  That’s what the Bill of Rights protects us from.  And you think you can just ignore it?  That is asking for trouble.  That is sheer folly.  We cannot ignore who we are.  And we should never fall into the trap to think that our arrogance will save us from nature.  The history of Germany since 1870 should tell you that.

 

b.) that there is still an option that a tyrannical government could be elected or an existing, democratic elected government could morph into a tyrannical one.

It is ever present.  Every government in existence now is morphing into a tyrannical one.  It is a continual process.  I can easily see another dictator rise out of Europe.  How many times now since the fall of Germany has it occurred world wide?  The latest is undoubtedly Venezuela.  The French believe that their government has gone too far and China continues to plow along oblivious to the real needs of her people.

 

Furthermore, the idea of 2A is based on the assumption that there are 2 forces only: the government and the public. Means, the public is defined as a single, incorporated and unique power. But thats impossible, it never happened to be and it will never happen to be. Nowhere and especially not in the USA. Evaluated logically, the public was given a law thats funded on an idea that dont work. Above all, I have to say that the introduction of 2A was a brilliant strategical tool to keep the public quite and confident.

Wow, that is a remarkable statement and you don’t even know why?!  Because it was spelled out that all men are created equal established that definition that we are a single incorporated and unique power (We The People).

 

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

 

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

 

It is the 2A that makes this possible.  The 2A is an integral part of our system.  It is why it is the second one.  It is a safety net to assure which of the two forces is the primary one.  And that government serves the people and not the other way around.  The 2A does work.  It works best when the ultimate expression of it is not used.  Whenever a people are disarmed, the government cannot fear the people and when it doesn’t fear the people leads to tyranny.  If a government is functioning properly then the people are quiet and confident.  That’s what the Founding Fathers gave us.

 

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is, in my opinion, a shaky one. Maybe the meaning of "shall" is different in English language than in my native tongue because "shall" in my language is meant as a recommendation and not as a specification. As said already, there will never be a united public power.

You’re right, that is just your opinion.  It still means the same today.  You’d discover that if you read the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers.  I’m sure the usage is in agreement to the Ten Commandments.  But instead of being a restriction on people’s actions, it is a restriction on government action.  It’s interesting to note that the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights are both based on “10”.

 

Maybe the knowledge about, by the government, is a reason for the huge military power of the USA which I judge as to be designed and powerful enough to even fight down a domestic revolt which is initiated and performed by 50% of the (armed) public in a very effective fashion.

The huge military is to assure that any combination of foreign powers cannot invade.  When we spent less than the next 8 or so nations combined for defense, encouraged the possibility of an alliance to stand up to us. Now that we spend more than the next 25, ensures that no alliance will try. 

 

True, we must always be weary that the military can be used against the people.  Standing armies were a major concern of the Founding Fathers.  But the American army is different.  It is highly trained and professional.  It enjoys a special relationship with the people.  They are the people.  In battle, soldiers fight and die for each other, then they fight and die for the people (Nation).  Very seldomly do they fight and die for the government.  Is it possible that the military could be used to put down civil unrest?  But the scale of it will determine their loyalties.  If the government has to utilize masses of troops to put down a rebellion, it’ll be because the government is in the wrong and the military will soon join the people.  Obama knew this.  This is why he continually removed experienced senior leadership and why he pushed for a NCSF to be just as strong as the military and be loyal only to the party.  What he got was Antifa.  Our system will bend but it won’t tolerate wannabe despots.  That’s why Trump was elected.  To put on the breaks so that the real corruption will have time to be revealed and allow future leaders to avoid the path we were on.  2020 will be known as the year the coup was put down.