09-20-2017, 10:53 AM
(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.
This doesn't really refute my point regarding the Constitution. I know they did this, I know the legal hoops that have to be jumped through because of the way it is written, I'm just saying that the intent is clear in that document and in writings of several founders that said a standing army was a threat to democracy. The reality hit them very soon, but for some reason they never amended that part. It's very interesting to look at.
(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.
Colonial army was never the army of the United States. When you look at the Constitution, you can only talk about events from 1787 onward, since that is the signing of the Constitution. Or maybe 1789 onward, since that is technically the start of our current government. The U.S. Army may see itself as descended from the colonial regulars, but the founding of the branch happened in 1791. Again, I know the history of how immediately they saw the need for a standing army, but they still had the view of it being a threat to the republic to exist and we have to wonder why the document wasn't amended to account for this change in policy that was so immediate.
I have my suspicions that the anti-federalists would have fought it tooth and nail.
(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 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.)
So are you arguing for a more Swiss-like system?
