"National Walk-Out Day"

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather simple logic.  The future United States required an army to expel the English from the country.  Therefore, the possibility of needing an army is well established in the minds of all the Framers.  Now, if you want to argue whether they wanted a standing army, that's a completely different story.  To claim that they couldn't even envision ever having one is illogical to the point of absurdity.

1. Well, that was the issue Fred raised, material to his point--whether the Framers wanted a standing army.  He was not claiming they could never envision just having an army. He  was claiming that originally they did not want a standing army.  And for the Framers the distinction between "standing" and reserve was a very important, material to questions of self defense and how it was to be provided for.  The answers can change drastically, according to whether a country has a standing army or not. Until 1784, they could certainly "envision" one--and the majority did not like what they saw in that vision.

2. My next point I think supports some of yours. It is precisely worry about a standing army--not just "an army"--which is used to justify the right to bear arms.  In Federalist No 41, Madison says that European powers keep guns out of the hands of their citizens so their standing armies cannot be challenged. In the new U.S., 100,000 armed civilians are a "check" to that potential power.  So armed citizenry are part of the package sold to make a standing army acceptable, so long as it is small.