Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Truth about Waco -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (239)	8/31/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: MNI	Respond to of 1449

I said it could reduce the need for a standing army - only. OK, but what connection does this statement have to my prior comments, then? A mere reduction of the need for a standing army does not remedy the disconnection of Jackson's comment with today's situation (nor would a mere reduction of the standing army's size do so, as long as a standing army remains the centerpiece of defense, and at the contemporary technological situtation, there is no alternative to that.) Less far-fetched is a conclusion in the opposite logical direction: the introduction of a standing army defense system alleviorates the need for a national militia and obscures the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment. I reconfirm: your reading of Andrew Jackson was outdated, and other reasons than that ahistorical referral are necessary in the discussion. You provided some. Fine.