US military spending and the 2nd amendment

[goat starer]

US military spending dwarfs that of other countries but are the figures underestimating the true level of expenditure.


http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2005.png

The 2nd Amendment says that

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I read this as saying that it was the need for local militaias to protect the state that created the constitutional right to bear arms as part of a "militia". This being the case then surely all domestic purchases of weaponry should be factored into the US defence spending. That is around 200 million firearms in private hands.

I do hope we can discuss this point without admin deciding that it is too contentious like sensible adult human beings!

[Bluenose]

I never did get how this ammendment got to mean people could just go and buy firearms. Seems like some sort of collective blind spot.  At least that's how it looks from this side of the Pacific pond.

I too hope that this does not go out of control, still if there is anywhere on the Interwebs where this subject can be discussed in a calm, sensible manner I would think that the HOT is that place.

[Aggie]

I read this as saying that it was the need for local militaias to protect the state that created the constitutional right to bear arms as part of a "militia". This being the case then surely all domestic purchases of weaponry should be factored into the US defence spending. That is around 200 million firearms in private hands.

I disagree.  Not all firearms are military weapons - I suspect the vast majority of money spent on firearms is for models which are entirely unsuitable for military use*. 

Besides, considering that most guns stay with the owner for a good number of years, we are not talking about spending on 200 million guns per year - I found this snippet:

In 1997, America's gun industry domestically produced 3.6 million guns— 1.4 million handguns,
and 2.2 million rifles and shotguns. In addition, the United States imported 980,000 guns and
exported 272,000 guns.
----
The wholesale value of guns manufactured in the United States in 1997 totaled more than $900
million. The value of handguns manufactured that year totaled $344 million, while the value of
rifles and shotguns totaled $565 million. The value of ammunition manufactured totaled $430
million. The combined wholesale value of both manufactured guns and ammunition in 1997 was
more than $1.3 billion.

As the fact sheet I got this from (http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/industry.pdf) had a bit of an anti-gun slant to it, I strongly suspect that the figures include weapons produced for and consumed by the US military.  Even if it does not, adding a couple of billion to the $575 billion or so of US military spending in 2005 would not make much of a difference.

I also wonder if the "rest of the world" section of the pie would be so small if private/militia spending was factored in...



*yeah, if it shoots, it can kill, but danged if I'd want to go to war with only a shotgun, a deer rifle, or a handgun if the enemy was armed with assault rifles (danged if I'd want to go to war in any case, but still...  ).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

*yeah, if it shoots, it can kill, but danged if I'd want to go to war with only a shotgun, a deer rifle, or a handgun if the enemy was armed with assault rifles (danged if I'd want to go to war in any case, but still...  ).

Which BTW is an argument against the most staunch pro-gun supporters: in the case of war a handgun, a shotgun or even a sniper rifle does little against tanks, missiles and bombardment. The counter-argument is that an armed population is harder to control (Afghanistan anyone?), still a guerrilla warfare scenario in the US is unlikely with the only exception of an all out Fascist coup.

Morally I'm with goat but in all practicality I agree with Aggie's argument, more so I'm more worried about the % of my taxes that goes into a corporate welfare for the defense industry with extremely expensive and nonsensical projects like the anti missile shield that has only worked twice in 10 tries (with all the coordinates and trajectory of the target known), among many other projects.

[Sibling Chatty]

Can't vote, Goats will eat me... (apologies to Bart Simpson)

[Aggie]

.....I'm more worried about the % of my taxes that goes into a corporate welfare for the defense industry with extremely expensive and nonsensical projects like the anti missile shield that has only worked twice in 10 tries (with all the coordinates and trajectory of the target known), among many other projects.

Ayuh, I'd vote to have that (any and all kickbacks/tax breaks to the defense industry) stated as military spending, because it IS.

[Sibling Chatty]

Damn, that would add another 25% or more...

[Griffin NoName]

   


I can't vote. There's not enough choices.

[beagle]

I never did get how this ammendment got to mean people could just go and buy firearms. Seems like some sort of collective blind spot.  At least that's how it looks from this side of the Pacific pond.

I think it's an interesting case of a difference between U.S. and U.K. thinking.  A lot of the U.S. constitutional stuff was lifted from the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights (e.g. forbidding of cruel and unusual punishments).

However the Bill of Rights has "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law" which is pretty much the exact opposite of the U.S. militia view.

I think there is a U.S. view that an armed populace aided in the American Revolution and is therefore "a good thing". I've heard the opposite point though, that guns were so expensive in colonial times that ordinary people didn't normally own them.

Not really sure what Goat is trying to prove. We all know lots of very peripheral research is funded from military budgets, as well as blatant subsidies to plane makers etc, let alone issues with adding in hand guns sales.

Whats the argument Goat? That the U.S. is spending too much? In which case why do you care as a non-taxpayer? I'm just relieved they're spending more than China and Russia combined. For now.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm just relieved they're spending more than China and Russia combined. For now.

Spending more means better product?  Not necessarily.

Or did you mean wasting more money than?

[goat starer]

Not really sure what Goat is trying to prove. We all know lots of very peripheral research is funded from military budgets, as well as blatant subsidies to plane makers etc, let alone issues with adding in hand guns sales.

Whats the argument Goat? That the U.S. is spending too much? In which case why do you care as a non-taxpayer? I'm just relieved they're spending more than China and Russia combined. For now.

i aint trying to prove anything. I just got told of on TOP for suggesting that EITHER....

the justification for private gun ownership in the US is created by the 2nd amendment to bolster the military and protect the state in which case any private gun ownership should be counted as US military spending (my interpretation)

OR

the second amendment permits the right to bear arms irrespective of the defence of the state in which case the words regulated militia and state are misleading and erroneous.

so they clapped me in irons and told me if i did it again i would be in hot water which i believe means walking the plank somewhere in iceland.

apparently if you mention the second amendment in a discussion on military spending it is naughty (although a bit of me sees their point given the rabid response my post recieved from the gun toting crazies of America who seemed to think it was an attack o their licence to lug around anti tank rifles and gatling guns - which it wasnt! I really dont care what they do so long as we dont do it)

[Aggie]

...the rabid response my post recieved from the gun toting crazies of America who seemed to think it was an attack o their licence to lug around anti tank rifles and gatling guns - which it wasnt! I really dont care what they do so long as we dont do it)

I think you could find common ground with said crazies if you pitched your argument the right way...  tell them they should be asking for a tax rebate on the money they spend on weapons because they are contributing to the defense budget. 

[ivor]

They're talking about individual States rights although that has significantly change since "The United States are."  Also I would think that it would have been up to the States originally to regulate what kind of firearms citizens had the right to bear not the Federal Government.  I believe that's what they meant by "Shall not be infringed upon."

[Pachyderm]

even a sniper rifle does little against tanks, missiles and bombardment


Not entirely true. Anti-material action is an important facet of the sniper's job. A US Marine scout/sniper in the first Gulf War stopped two Iraqi armoured vehicles which were advancing on his position with two shots. Admittedly, explosive rounds (blew the tracks off), and he had a 50.cal rifle, but that is exactly why he was there.

And a sniper within shooting distance (guess why they teach them camouflage and concealment, as well as tactical movement) can easily affect missiles, (Don't like bullets. But would have to be on the ground) and at least the crews of artillery pieces.


PPCLI (Canadian Army) soldier Corporal Rob Furlong (Operation Anaconda, Afghanistan) - holds the record for the longest-ever recorded and confirmed sniper kill at 2,430 metres (1.509 miles) using a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) McMillan TAC-50 rifle.

Mile and a half. It's got to the point where they can kill you from further than human vision can see...

[Sibling Chatty]

Do note that Qne admin at TOP is a 2nd Amendment (Wealthy) whacko, and has a huge gun safe/room with several weapons that aren't legal unless they are disabled and...blah, blah...one was a _____, that cost almost as much as a house!! It cost him huge amounts (for the proper permits to buy this thing cost over 10K, about double that to license it, THEN he had to pay for it AND build a safe to certain specs) and he's rarely showed it to anyone because it's SOOO special. Yakkada, yakkada, the whole thing stunned me.

(During the time he was whining about having to spend $12K on his septic system, he's also bragging about a $100,000 PLUS weapons you can't even use purchase?? I decided then he was a total crackpot.)