Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2017, 01:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When you look at that, in conjunction with the lack of a limit on naval appropriations, and the writings of the framers, the intent becomes clear. It was stated in the writings of several framers that they saw a standing army as a threat to the republic. They had seen the ground forces of Britain used to oppress the people, and they did not want the same to occur, here. They saw a standing army as a tool of tyranny.

Now, the interpretation you have is what has been used to justify a standing army for pretty much our entire history, but it denies the intent. The ambiguous wording has led to that corruption.

Is there writing on the intent of the 2nd amendment?  I know I've seen quotes, but with no context it's hard to tell.