[antiRepublicrat]

Generally I’d say no, except the alternative would be to put more troops in harm’s way to guard these self-important politicians.

No because hiring forces like this generally makes me think of a hired mercenary army, and we already have an Army. I’d hate to see a slippery slope where more of the job of the soldier is taken over by hired guns driven by money rather than loyalty and honor. IIRC, going this direction helped the downfall of the Roman Empire.

[c-b 1]

Generally I’d say no, except the alternative would be to put more troops in harm’s way to guard these self-important politicians.

Maybe if the government didn't hire mercinarys to protect them they wouldn't go there.

No because hiring forces like this generally makes me think of a hired mercenary army, and we already have an Army. I’d hate to see a slippery slope where more of the job of the soldier is taken over by hired guns driven by money rather than loyalty and honor. IIRC, going this direction helped the downfall of the Roman Empire.

I wholeheatedly agree.

[org.whodat]

No because hiring forces like this generally makes me think of a hired mercenary army, and we already have an Army. I’d hate to see a slippery slope where more of the job of the soldier is taken over by hired guns driven by money rather than loyalty and honor. IIRC, going this direction helped the downfall of the Roman Empire.

BTTT

I have a good deal of misgivings about the Constitution in this area, a private army killing people. I don't buy it! Without absolute proof that they were being shot at and then their first order should be to retreat.