A "Well Regulated Militia" .....
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
I do believe we had a standing Navy however ....
The Founders on a Standing Navy: American Military Action Abroad (1783-1860)
TheLibertonian
New Member
The army and the navy were separate, and this was at a time period where attacking and destroying private merchants was considered a perfectly legitimate way to wage a cold war.
They did not like the idea of a standing army because historically, standing military forces tended to get bored and decide they could run thing better. As we've seen repeatedly since they wrote the constitution throughout the world. Standing armies are also a drain on resources as they produce no food, no wealth, and no goods; hence why you have to raise taxes when you get on a war footing and why rationing was common during war time.
This_person
Well-Known Member
There's US Constitution, an old document that technically but not in practice still applies today, limits the standing army but not the Navy.
No, really they wouldn't.
TheLibertonian
New Member
Because the only thing the founders wrote was the constitution.
So let's go, junior...let's talk about everything else they wrote.
TheLibertonian
New Member
There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207
"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
I meant...something relevant to this thread, slow child.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I was agreeing with you, jackass. The founders clearly didn't want a standing army.
BlueSunday
New Member
The words "well regulated" are what will bring down the second amendment,eventually.
littlelady
God bless the USA
Is that what you want? Americans will never let that happen. You are seeing it now in the uprising in this election cycle. And, Obama, Hillary, et al are hoping to change that 'well regulated' part. The GOP is guilty, too. The thing I see is that the powers that be think they will not be touched by ignoring the Constitution because they think they are above all that, and will not be affected. They might be greatly surprised.
Oh, I should have noticed that nh started this thread. Oh, boy.
The NRA PSA's are awesome! "I am America's safest place".
Last edited:
glhs837
Power with Control
So, to standing armies and their threat to the people. How many govts currently in existence have been so for over 200 years with a standing army? I think the protections placed by the Founders have wroked well, and would continue to do so. I think were the US govt to decide to use the Army to subdue the populace, you would have at best a 40% compliance rate. And that 60% would not just stand down, but actively oppose the 40. Which of course does not change the fact that the Founders wanted the general population to be armed, just in case. It's quite clear from everything they wrote that that's how they felt.
PsyOps
Pixelated
No it doesn't. It's clear in the 2nd and in extended writings and words of the founders that the RIGHT belongs to the people; not a 'well regulated' militia. There isn't a requirement for there to be a well regulated militia in order for that right to keep and bear arms to be exercised by the people. Exercising that right allows THE PEOPLE to stand up a well regulated militia, among THE PEOPLE not the government, to defend any threats to our constitution and current form of government by the government. 'Well regulated' does not require that the government be the regulator.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Considering the multitude of case law on the subject that directly discuss this subject, I disagree. As do our judges across the country.
Quite the opposite has already been the case; courts have made it very clear. So nothing to worry about.
Besides....do you really believe it even possible to disarm 80-100 million Americans??
But again, the point is entirely moot; you anti-gun types are losing ground in nearly every state in the union and have been doing so for some time now.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Yes!
TheLibertonian
New Member
I think you're misunderstanding what the fear was. It's not the army deciding to work with the government to suppress the people, it's the army deciding they know how to run the country better then the politicians and establishing a military authority.
And let me ask you how many times have you run into someone either currently or formerly serving who expresses disgust in the civilian government, how it's incompetent and weak and how "that would never happen in the <insert branch of choice>"?
I mean there was fear the government could use the military that way as well, but that was not the only fear and I don't think the main thrust of worry.
Last edited:
Well Regulated meant routine training with arms as a cohesive force , not rules and regulations