Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 07:26:
Well said as usual BoP. However, all moot at this point in our history -- as there has been a standing military for more than 200 years.

Technically yes but also not really. While the Regular Army was formed in 1791, it's hard to call it a standing military when it comprised only 700 men. Even the Civil War was largely fought with volunteer regiments created by States based on the idea of militias. Which is why you had units like 1st Massachusetts and 3rd New York. The concept of a professional, national level standing army, as one would compare to the armies of those of Europe, didn't really get going in the US until after the Civil War. Experience learned from that war, on both sides, showed that a single, coherent command structure, logistics planning, and training infrastructure would be needed and that was when the US saw the true beginnings of its nationalized, standing military force. What we think of as a modern, professional army didn't get off the ground until the really early part of the 20th century, about a decade before the start of World War I. It was tiny, relatively speaking, at that which is why the US' involvement in World War I was labeled "The American Expeditionary Force". That, too, was based on regimental organization from experience learned post-Civil War in the American West. An actual, standing, in-defense-of-the-whole-nation army wouldn't arrive until World War II when war became a national interest on a global stage instead of limited interior conflicts. So I would say the US has only had unified, standing military for the last 125-130 years or so.

Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 9, 2024, 07:26:
Listen, I don't think all guns should be outlawed. And I agree especially in rural areas having a gun for home defense is a very reasonable thing. But the extent to which the 2nd amendment is used to stop reasonable regulation of the gun industry is very problematic.

You will not find that I disagree with you. What I stand firmly against is reactionary, emotionally driven efforts to abrogate or significantly neuter the 2nd Amendment or any Amendment. I will also submit that it is not the place of States to attempt to do so on their own. The Amendments, all of them, are enacted on a Federal level and any reasonable regulation must come from the Federal level. While I do not agree with SCOTUS much these days, I do agree with them swatting down State laws that attempt to encroach upon Federal regulation.

There is no good, easy answer. There never is because any answer that purports itself to be good or easy is neither. The US has a rather complicated and byzantine political structure, one born out of fear and trauma, and any effort must navigate that structure which will inevitably be protracted, difficult, and result in an uneasy compromise. We should remember that we have already had compromises that pissed everyone involved off. Like Federal legislation in 1968 and 1986.

If I am brutally pragmatic, I know there won't be any meaningful, reasonable regulation occurring within my lifetime. There is a significant voting population that do not agree with any regulation at all. No matter how sane or reasonable that regulation may be. There is also monied interests that hold sway over the Legislative branch of the government. Those are facts that I cannot ignore. The best that I can do is to continue to vote my conscience. Which I do, to the best of my ability.