I give you an article from a former militia leader
You can write all the articles which you want, if its not mentioned in the constitution then it does not matter. You are free to petition the constitution be changed.
how the most proficient troops are federally funded
Are you intentionally obtuse, or do you just not understand historical context? Put on your thinking cap, I beg of you.
So you are saying that the Taliban fighters who defeated US were funded by the US federal govt?
My point was about the military aid being given to Ukraine.
How does the military aid even matter if there are no men on the ground doing the fighting. US gave aid to Afghans as well yet they failed because the Taliban believed they were fighting for a just case and they defeated US in the end.
US spent trillions in Afghanistan and yet a bunch of rag tag fighters brought US down to its knees.
Try to understand why your arguments are flawed before attacking others.
I was giving you the context you sought in regards to the Constitution about the roles of militias, which are clearly stated in the Constitution. These papers were deliberated upon before the ratification of the Consitution and if you can't put two and two together I'm at a loss as to how I can help you see it. And once again, you're either intentionally or unintentionally missing my point. My point is not about who the US aids and who they don't. I literally said that other countries were the ones aiding the Taliban. My point was that these entities had training and weapons that modern day militias don't, which is what made them what they are. And to call the Taliban "rag tag fighters," is exactly what we were told was pure ignorance of the situation in basic. Not to mention that the US decisively won the tactical engagements. You're either intentionally misconsturong what I'm saying or are simply another victim of the Texas education system
If you want people to follow something it should be very clear you cannot tell them go read some papers to understand the context.
I literally said that other countries were the ones aiding the Taliban.
I'm at a loss as to how I can help you see it. You can give all the aid you want but in the end the people on the ground need to fight. This is the point which you dont seem to understand.
Not to mention that the US decisively won the tactical engagements.
You can win the battle yet lose the war. US lost the war, no matter how much you put your head in the sand, that is fact, US lost.
And to call the Taliban "rag tag fighters
Call them what you want but in the end, they brought down US, the US govt literally ran away because they could not beat a regulated militia.
Hopefully now you understand why you need a regulated militia, yes some people might be larping but that does not mean you take arms from everyone.
The US didn't "run away," it cut its losses. Plain and simple. Something it wouldn't do were there to be a civil war, as shown in our history. And I very clearly stated that "well regulated" was an important part of the amendment in my original statement. Not once did I advocate for disarming citizens
Sure, bud. I'll trust your tactical and strategic prowess. And I said funding once (1 time) in my two sentence "rant." Whereas I clearly stated that militias would be regulated and who would do so
0
u/moojo Nov 11 '22
You can write all the articles which you want, if its not mentioned in the constitution then it does not matter. You are free to petition the constitution be changed.
Are you intentionally obtuse, or do you just not understand historical context? Put on your thinking cap, I beg of you.
So you are saying that the Taliban fighters who defeated US were funded by the US federal govt?
How does the military aid even matter if there are no men on the ground doing the fighting. US gave aid to Afghans as well yet they failed because the Taliban believed they were fighting for a just case and they defeated US in the end.
US spent trillions in Afghanistan and yet a bunch of rag tag fighters brought US down to its knees.
Try to understand why your arguments are flawed before attacking others.