Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you are neglecting the language of the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 8

Notice all of the wording, but 12 especially. It is rather clear that the intent for a standing, permanent army was not there. Navy? Yes, but not an army.

And yet a standing Army was made and in combat only 3 years into Washington's 8 year stint as President.

Followed by Founding Father John Adams. Founding Father/Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson.

It's not like they didn't know they could change the Constitution, either, considering they added an 11th on DURING Washington's Presidency.

- - - - - - - - - -

Regardless of all of that, though. It still doesn't address the point that you claimed the militias were the Army, and in fact the militias were never the Army. Even if there was briefly a temporary Army, it was the Colonial Army, which was very distinct from the militias.

Regulars vs militia.

- - - - - - - - - - -

And lets just say we ignore the bit about being able to keep arms, and we ignore the fact that every President we've ever had has had a standing army, and we ignore the fact that the Military and the militias were vastly different things. All of which makes it pretty clear the idea of the 2nd amendment meaning being able to join the military is bullshit.

How about this?

Every male of 18 years or older in this country has to sign up for selective services. That makes every adult male a sort of militia, since they're able to be called up at any time in order to serve. Thus... all adult males should be allowed the right to keep and bare arms. (Sorry women, y'alls screwed until you wanna accept the "equality" of being drafted.)