Quoted: Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia. The State of Arizona's Constitution doesn't allow private militias, what are we supposed to do?

Be part of Mexico...

Wait you are already part of Mexico.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? And why do I care what it says? Me hopes you are kidding. Oh good lord... yes.  It was sarcasim

Gotta use the smilies man!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? And why do I care what it says? Me hopes you are kidding. Oh good lord... yes.  It was sarcasim

just wait and see. I am 20 years old and would bet that by the end of my lifetime the courts will rule the constitution unconstitutional. It sounds ridiculous but at the rate this country has been going, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it.  And you are correct about the standing military.  Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect. It is not the majority of the opinion here. Throughout US history? Whiskey Rebellion  Oh please.  Go read the details.  The Canadians had their hand in it as did the Indians. War of Northern Aggression That was two armies of two independent nations some would include the Indian Wars They would be wrong Suppression of the Bonus Army March Yep, ONE incident that I would agree with.  Hardly matches up with the dire warnings being tossed about. Waco should be included there as well. Delta was on the ground at Waco, riding along in the combat engineer vehicles.

Did someone actually say "War of Northern Aggression"?
That's when you know you will never be able to discuss something rationally with someone.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia. The State of Arizona's Constitution doesn't allow private militias, what are we supposed to do? Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution 26. Bearing arms Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Is there a law backing that provision up?  If not then it's not prohibited, it's just not protected from legislative action.  Missouri's constitution contains the remark in it's keep and bear arms clause that "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons".  Yet we have concealed carry.  The challenge by the anti's to our law failed because the constitution does not prohibit it, it just does not protect it from being proscribed or regulated.  There is a difference.

Cool, didn't know that.

simple, they make a new appropriation law every year
no single appropriation can be for longer than 2 years, but they're Constitutionally able to keep making a new appropriation for the same troops to be maintained

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it.  And you are correct about the standing military.  Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect. It is not the majority of the opinion here. Throughout US history? Whiskey Rebellion  Oh please.  Go read the details.  The Canadians had their hand in it as did the Indians. War of Northern Aggression That was two armies of two independent nations some would include the Indian Wars They would be wrong Suppression of the Bonus Army March Yep, ONE incident that I would agree with.  Hardly matches up with the dire warnings being tossed about. Waco should be included there as well. Delta was on the ground at Waco, riding along in the combat engineer vehicles. Did someone actually say "War of Northern Aggression"? That's when you know you will never be able to discuss something rationally with someone.

Agreed.
I was raised on "war between the states"
I feel that is more accurate.

Quoted: Agreed. I was raised on "war between the states" I feel that is more accurate.

Why…

The North invaded the South… or was the aggressor. No invasion, no war.

Feel what you want that does not change the truth.

Quoted: Quoted: Agreed. I was raised on "war between the states" I feel that is more accurate. Why… The North invaded the South… or was the aggressor. No invasion, no war. Feel what you want that does not change the truth.

Add another name to the Southern History Revisionists/Apoligists list.

Next you'll complain about "our Yankee Schools".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Agreed. I was raised on "war between the states" I feel that is more accurate. Why… The North invaded the South… or was the aggressor. No invasion, no war. Feel what you want that does not change the truth. Add another name to the Southern History Revisionists/Apoligists list. Next you'll complain about "our Yankee Schools".

Fact ain't revision... they are simply fact. I understand why you don't like them.

Done with the hijack yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Agreed. I was raised on "war between the states" I feel that is more accurate. Why… The North invaded the South… or was the aggressor. No invasion, no war. Feel what you want that does not change the truth. Add another name to the Southern History Revisionists/Apoligists list. Next you'll complain about "our Yankee Schools". Fact ain't revision... they are simply fact. I understand why you don't like them. Done with the hijack yet.

How wierd.  I've searched through books, encyclopedias, and even the internet and they all are wrong I guess.  They show the South declaring secession first, and then firing on a Federal Fort.  
I didn't realize that the North declared secession and fired on a Southern Fort.

Now I am done with the hijack.

Quoted: How wierd.  I've searched through books, encyclopedias, and even the internet and they all are wrong I guess.  They show the South declaring secession first, and then firing on a Federal Fort.   I didn't realize that the North declared secession and fired on a Southern Fort. Now I am done with the hijack.

The South fired on Fort Sumter after they had told the Union forces there to leave, since it was Southern Soil. Since the Union troops did not leave, the South considered them invaders and fired.

As for secession, that is no reason to go to war. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from seceeding. If they wanted out, then they should have been let out. Slavery would have collapsed eventually anyway, and I think the Union would have come together again.

Quoted: Quoted: The world has changed a bit in the last 225 years.  There is no violation--it is funded for (I think) LESS THAN two years--annually--then reappropriated when that expires.  It ends up being ongoing, but I would hate to have to begin from scratch as invaders were pouring in--given today's logistics regarding transportation.   The tin foil aisle is over there ------------------------------------------------------> Wow, that is the same argument the anti-gunner use about the 2nd. At least we should be consistent...

What?  Put down the crack pipe and disregard TBK's first sentence, which is irrelevant.  The rest is dead on.

Quoted: Quoted: How wierd.  I've searched through books, encyclopedias, and even the internet and they all are wrong I guess.  They show the South declaring secession first, and then firing on a Federal Fort.   I didn't realize that the North declared secession and fired on a Southern Fort. Now I am done with the hijack. The South fired on Fort Sumter after they had told the Union forces there to leave, since it was Southern Soil. Since the Union troops did not leave, the South considered them invaders and fired. As for secession, that is no reason to go to war. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from seceeding. If they wanted out, then they should have been let out. Slavery would have collapsed eventually anyway, and I think the Union would have come together again.

+1

Quoted: The world has changed a bit in the last 225 years.  There is no violation--it is funded for (I think) LESS THAN two years--annually--then reappropriated when that expires.  It ends up being ongoing, but I would hate to have to begin from scratch as invaders were pouring in--given today's logistics regarding transportation lazy, fat, unpatriotic, "what has the government done for me lately" population.   The tin foil aisle is over there ------------------------------------------------------>

Fixed it for 'ya

Quoted: Quoted: Orwell I respect your opinion and concur with much of it. And you are correct about the standing military. Throughout history they have been used agaisnt the people they were origionally made to protect. It is not the majority of the opinion here. It blows my mind really, out of all people, gun owners should be against the military the most. Just look at NO that whole situation has proven that the military or police (police in NO) will follow orders regardless of what they are. It is really simple, either eliminate that arm of force from the government or become enslaved. I would love to be able to say “I told you so” in 30 years, however I thirty years I’m sure that it will be illegal to say it. It amazes me how people refuse to learn from history and love to repeat it’s mistakes. Well at least you are out of the closet now. I should be against people now shedding their blood for this country. Please FOAD

Who here can take a full power shot from me?

Quoted: Quoted: How wierd.  I've searched through books, encyclopedias, and even the internet and they all are wrong I guess.  They show the South declaring secession first, and then firing on a Federal Fort.   I didn't realize that the North declared secession and fired on a Southern Fort. Now I am done with the hijack. The South fired on Fort Sumter after they had told the Union forces there to leave, since it was Southern Soil. Since the Union troops did not leave, the South considered them invaders and fired. As for secession, that is no reason to go to war. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a state from seceeding. If they wanted out, then they should have been let out. Slavery would have collapsed eventually anyway, and I think the Union would have come together again.

The Feds considered Fort Sumter their property.  

Regardless of their reasons, the South did fire the first shots, and were the ones that caused the crisis by trying to seceede.  

Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

You are showing your ignorance.
The military is only funded for one year at a time. That's part of the reason we have procurement problems.

In the future you might want to do a little research before exposing your ignorance to the world.

Quoted: Spade has already answered the question. The Founders kept a very small standing army. They funded it on a year-to-year basis, like we do now. BTW, I did my PhD work in Consitutional Law and History, so I might actually know a bit on the topic.

Excellent point. We have always had a standing Army, and a Marine Corps for that matter; it was just smaller than it is now.

Interestingly, we have had a period in our history where there was no Navy, and that's why the USMC is a senior service to the USN.

Quoted: People are messing up the whole "standing army" and "militia" thing. First up, remember that the writers of the Constitution knew just how badly the militia performed during the war. Most of them sucked. There's a reason that when Daniel Morgan retired during the war due to illness he told his successor that he needed the militia. And the only way to get them in line was to put some of his regulars behind them to shoot down the first man that ran. Not every militia was bad, but it varied. Also, you by and large couldn't get most militias to leave their home area. So if the Brits moved their troops, Washington had to move his regulars, and just hope to pick up more militia when he got where he was going. So the writers knew two things 1)A standing professional army is dangerous. 2)A standing professional army is way better at fighting war than a militia. (the Navy is basically ignored, 'cause it's hard to use a ship to oppress people since they don't live on the ocean). So the setup we have is, gasp, another great compromise. We have a standing Army, that has at least a two year budget. Congress controls the budget, which, as I said, keeps the Army from becoming a private fiefdom. So the Army is established as being under the Executive and Legislative branch. The Army is also kept fairly small (compare today's Army to WW2, or WW1).  So we have a small tightly controlled Army to keep it from discovering that they have a lot of power. Except the founders knew that a small Army wouldn't be able to face all threats. This is where the militia and 2nd come in. In time of crises it allowes a large body of armed men to be quickly raised to supplemenet the standing army. You don't have a lot of wasted time finding people, they're already there. Of course, the militia can also be used to oppose a standing army if the need arises. The clauses about the Army, and the settup of the milita do not oppose each, but largely complement. We have a small standing Army (to keep it from being dangerous), that is capable of becoming very very large if the need arises. A lot of you guys think the two are permanantly opposed, and they aren't. That's not how it's set up. Times have not changed that much. This setup works today as well as it would in the late 1700's.

Quit injecting reason and logic in a tin foil hat thread.

Quoted: Okay, dance ALL around it. You said the military was involved in consfication of guns, they were not, you are wrong. Now, you do this little tap dance. Why don't you go re-read the thread, because you have no clue what you are talking about. Regardless though, the military and police are pretty much the same in the since that both will follow orders to the tee regardless of the legality of it.

Actually, LTGEN Honore followed the law to the letter. He did not order the military to confiscate firearms, and he ordered his troops, recently returned from Iraq to lower the weapons, in a city where rescue helos were being shot at, and to remember this is the US not Iraq.

Now your "militia-at least the libtards' view of what a militia is-" the NG may have been involved but they were not under control of the military. They were under the control of the civil authorities AND were being used as a police force.

Quoted: Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html You are showing your ignorance. The military is only funded for one year at a time. That's part of the reason we have procurement problems. In the future you might want to do a little research before exposing your ignorance to the world.

I was nearly certain that's de rigeur for attention whores and s

Dense, to the max to boot.

Quoted: The Feds considered Fort Sumter their property.   Regardless of their reasons, the South did fire the first shots, and were the ones that caused the crisis by trying to seceede.

I guess you don’t mean what you say because you are still hijacking.

They could have considered the moon their property that did not make it so…

Look at a map.

What caused the crisis were Union troops where they were not welcomed. This also obfuscates the following invasion of the South by the North.

Quoted: Quoted: They could have considered the moon their property that did not make it so… Look at a map. What caused the crisis were Union troops where they were not welcomed. This also obfuscates the following invasion of the South by the North.

I am looking at a map, and I see that Fort Sumter is still Federal property.  I guess they did make it so.

Quoted: Okay, dance ALL around it. You said the military was involved in consfication of guns, they were not, you are wrong. Now, you do this little tap dance. Why don't you go re-read the thread, because you have no clue what you are talking about. Regardless though, the military and police are pretty much the same in the since that both will follow orders to the tee regardless of the legality of it.

I read the thread.  You made a statement.  You were wrong.  You won't admit it.  Period.

No, the military and the police are not "pretty much the same".  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They could have considered the moon their property that did not make it so… Look at a map. What caused the crisis were Union troops where they were not welcomed. This also obfuscates the following invasion of the South by the North. I am looking at a map, and I see that Fort Sumter is still Federal property.  I guess they did make it so.

Well there we have it, you admit it was Northern aggression…

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: a lot of people here say that anything other than a standing military is useless. while i don't know all the in's-and-out's of it, it would seem to me that the swiss have done ok with their militias over the years. yes, times have changed, and as noted this is also one of the top 10 arguments FOR gun control. that and the fact that we have standing military and military-type forces to protect us (army, navy, air force, police, fbi, atf, dea, etc.), so we don't really NEED guns. and while i'm in this thread, i'd like to address the issue of Hitlery as president. if you think our guns are any safer with republican candidates like McCain and Giulini, you're dreaming. ETA: if anyone is saying that our militaries will NOT be used to collect our guns after seeing what has happened in NO... well, that's just sad. IBTL The military had nothing to do with what happened in NOLA.  Try getting some facts. Gee, the Repubs did not renew the AWB..........yeah, no different.  You mention McCain and Guliani, two who will not get the nomination and two who are regularly trounced on this board......nothing new, oh swami. Comparing the situation the Swiss have to ours since the inception of this country shows that you have no grasp on facts or reality. larry, maybe i'm wrong here, but weren't NG units used in the house-to-house "search and rescue" missions that resulted in some of the confiscations? if i'm wrong, i stand corrected, but i don't think i am. as far as repubs and democrats on gun control, there are some democrats that won't stand for it, and there are plenty of republicans who would love more of it (two of which could be the aforementioned nomination candidates). i'm pretty sure you can find a list of these people *somewhere*. lastly, since you are so willing to point out my lack of factual grasp, why don't you fu*king educate me on how different our system (from inception) and the swiss system is. i didn't come in here throwing around snide little comments about others and not bother to back it up. i stated my opinion and that's it.

First, I am not sure if NG units were even doing it, but if they were it was under STATE control.  There is a difference there that some just don't seem to get.  Now, if they had been FEDERALIZED and were doing it, there might be something to what he says, but that is not the case.

You don't throw around snide comments???????????  That whole thing about the Swiss was just that.  Look it up.  Their world and ours are two different spheres of influence.  They aren't exactly a superpower.

States in the union have EVERY right to secede. While I do not call it the war of northern aggression the North made it an issue by FORCEFULLY trying to "preserve the union" when ANY state has the RIGHT to leave the union

I know this is aiding a thread hijack; however, it appears South Carolina even passed a law in 1836 giving the land for Ft Sumter to the US Government. They gave up title to the land and then fired on it to reclaim it when, in fact, at the time it was rightfully property of the US Government.

LINK

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia. You do realise that the banning of all possession of guns by civilians is political suicide, and then start confiscating them on a anational basis. It would lead to a lot of deaths, both military/LE and among the people. Doing something like that would very likly throw this country into another civil war. No politician in thier right mind would do that. It is for things like that that the Second amendment was spesificly added to the constitution, to allow the people to protect themselves from a corrupt tyrannical government. Any government that would just toss the Second Amendment would be seen that way by many people because it is the second amendment that garuntes all the others.[/quote] Did you miss the events in New Orleans?

Did you, and several others, miss that this was at the local level and not at the federal level?

Quoted: I know this is aiding a thread hijack; however, it appears South Carolina even passed a law in 1836 giving the land for Ft Sumter to the US Government. They gave up title to the land and then fired on it to reclaim it when, in fact, at the time it was rightfully property of the US Government. LINK

Here is the text pertaining to Ft. Sumter.  South Carolina had indeed given it over to the Federal Goverment, and with no question the State of South Carolina made direct attack upon a Federal installation on Federal lands.  There are several other examples on the page, and what it comes down to is the Feds go to great pains to make it completely unequivical that they own the property 100% as infintum once given over.  In fact, if it doesn't follow minimum legal standards for the transfer they simply will not pay for the land and refuse purchase of it.  Very interesting stuff:

In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the "land" which included the under-construction fort.
       A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land - but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
       When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land" was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
       Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
       The result was a state law:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

       "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

       "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

       "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

       "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

       "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

       Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
       For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most major libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, "The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina," pp. 463-472.

After reading that legal analysis I have to conclude the South started the war.

IMO that would be like Castro attacking GITMO. How many people would say, "well it's Cuba's land so let them have it?"

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They could have considered the moon their property that did not make it so… Look at a map. What caused the crisis were Union troops where they were not welcomed. This also obfuscates the following invasion of the South by the North. I am looking at a map, and I see that Fort Sumter is still Federal property.  I guess they did make it so. Well there we have it, you admit it was Northern aggression…

Fort Sumter was Federal property at the time, and it still is.  Just saying it never changed hands.

Do you think that Jefferson Davis and the rebel government didn't know what would happen?  Do you honestly think that they didn't expect a war to start over it?  I mean it isn't like Lincoln surprised them or didn't warn them.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it'." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

What was that part again?  "In your hand....is the momentous issue of civil war."

Ok, so Lincoln is fairly elected in 1860, and takes office in March, 1861.  The South attacked the Federal Fort Sumter on April 13, 1861 a month later, firing on Federal troops on Federal soil.  What means did the South do to try to avert that attack or the Secession?  Did they attempt to resolve the crisis in Congress?  No.  And if Secession is so Constitutional, didn't the South have other recourses?  Of course they did.  Why not go to the Supreme Court to decide on Secession?  The Court was heavy weighted with Southern judges, who proved to be friendly to the institution of slavery.  But they didn't.  Davis ordered the South Carolina militia to attack the Fort.  He knew what would have happened, yet he made no attempt to prevent an escalation to the crisis.  

What was Lincoln's attitude towards the upcoming rift?  "Lincoln called for compromise, promising he would not initiate force to maintain the Union or interfere with slavery in the states in which it existed. He did, however, vow to retain federal property."

He promised not to interfere with slavery in states in which it existed.  He was willing to talk out their differences.


The South precipitated the crisis, and further escalated the crisis, knowing full well that their actions was starting a war.  The Federal government made their position known that it would not, and could not stand by any attempt on the part of the South to seceede.  The South had other alternatives, such as working through legislative means, or appealing to the judicial branch to settle their differences or to get a ruling on whose position was correct, but the South choose not to.  They choose the power of the cannonball over the power of a Judge's gavel.  

So the writers knew two things 1)A standing professional army is dangerous. 2)A standing professional army is way better at fighting war than a militia. (the Navy is basically ignored, 'cause it's hard to use a ship to oppress people since they don't live on the ocean).

I agree for the most part with all of this, the point of the clause was to allow congress to summon an army in the time of war, however they are supposed to disband it after the war has ended. The founders new that a standing army was a threat to freedom, and also a waste of tax dollars, if there is an 8 year war then fund the army no more than 4 times and then disband it after the war has ended. This was the point of the of the clause, and if you look at history you will see that our founding fathers were very set against a permanent standing army because of it’s great threat to freedom and liberty.

Back in those times things weren’t as legal, actually the constitution originally was much longer but much of it was cut out because they felt it was to “wordy”. I don’
T think our founding fathers could have had any idea that bills today would be 800 pages long, I mean look at what our legal system today, it’s a damn joke. Our founding fathers assumed that we would be intelligent enough to interpret what the constitution means and what was intended, and the result is today is that people sit there and honestly believe the 2nd amendment applies only to militia due to our legal system being in the shitter.

So the setup we have is, gasp, another great compromise. We have a standing Army, that has at least a two year budget. Congress controls the budget, which, as I said, keeps the Army from becoming a private fiefdom. So the Army is established as being under the Executive and Legislative branch. The Army is also kept fairly small (compare today's Army to WW2, or WW1). So we have a small tightly controlled Army to keep it from discovering that they have a lot of power.

Come on, are you going to sit there and say we have a small army? Do you realize how much we spend on “defense” in this country, our army isn’t even close to be small, not by any stretch of the word.

Except the founders knew that a small Army wouldn't be able to face all threats. This is where the militia and 2nd come in. In time of crises it allowes a large body of armed men to be quickly raised to supplemenet the standing army. You don't have a lot of wasted time finding people, they're already there. Of course, the militia can also be used to oppose a standing army if the need arises.

You have it backwards, first we don’t have a small army, and second the militia is there as a first line of defense they can hold the ground while the army is being raised in the event of being caught completely off guard, then the army takes over and the militia can be used to support it if necessary. But then again we were supposed to be a neutral nation and not going around invading people for no reason, however that is a whole other topic.

The clauses about the Army, and the settup of the milita do not oppose each, but largely complement. We have a small standing Army (to keep it from being dangerous), that is capable of becoming very very large if the need arises. A lot of you guys think the two are permanantly opposed, and they aren't. That's not how it's set up. Times have not changed that much. This setup works today as well as it would in the late 1700's.

No one is saying it’s unconstitutional to have a army, however it is unconstitutional to have a army during peace time, if you look at the history you will see that it’s pretty obvious the intent of the clause was to prevent this.

Quoted: So the writers knew two things 1)A standing professional army is dangerous. 2)A standing professional army is way better at fighting war than a militia. (the Navy is basically ignored, 'cause it's hard to use a ship to oppress people since they don't live on the ocean). I agree for the most part with all of this, the point of the clause was to allow congress to summon an army in the time of war, however they are supposed to disband it after the war has ended. The founders new that a standing army was a threat to freedom, and also a waste of tax dollars, if there is an 8 year war then fund the army no more than 4 times and then disband it after the war has ended. This was the point of the of the clause, and if you look at history you will see that our founding fathers were very set against a permanent standing army because of it’s great threat to freedom and liberty. Back in those times things weren’t as legal, actually the constitution originally was much longer but much of it was cut out because they felt it was to “wordy”. I don’ T think our founding fathers could have had any idea that bills today would be 800 pages long, I mean look at what our legal system today, it’s a damn joke. Our founding fathers assumed that we would be intelligent enough to interpret what the constitution means and what was intended, and the result is today is that people sit there and honestly believe the 2nd amendment applies only to militia due to our legal system being in the shitter. <snip> No one is saying it’s unconstitutional to have a army, however it is unconstitutional to have a army during peace time, if you look at the history you will see that it’s pretty obvious the intent of the clause was to prevent this.

Sir, you are just flat wrong in your assumptions. The Constitution neither states explicitly nor implies that a standing army in peacetime is not permitted. Having spent the better part of a decade in full time study of that document and it's drafting, I can state with absolute confidence that you do not have a clue about this topic. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is true.

Within 1 year of the ratification of the Constitution the new Congress had established a PEACETIME STANDING ARMY. We have had one every year since. Are you trying to say that the Founders just FORGOT within a year what Article I, Section 12 meant?

For a clear explanation of what the Founders thought, and wrote, on the topic of a standing army and its' control, please read Federalist Number 24. Hamilton quite plainly stated that the document did NOT preclude (nor did it require) a standing army in peacetime, but that such an army would be very closely controlled by the legislature through the control of its' purse strings.

Please stop. Your premise that a standing army in peacetime is unconstitutional is flat wrong. What the Founders feared was a military not controlled by the legislature. That is why it is the legislative branch, and not the executive, that has control over the purse strings of the army, and why the appropriations were limited to two years. Had the Framers wished to prohibit a standing army in peacetime, they could have easily done what the states of Pennsylvania and North Carolina did, and included a clause stating :"As standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: a lot of people here say that anything other than a standing military is useless. while i don't know all the in's-and-out's of it, it would seem to me that the swiss have done ok with their militias over the years. ETA: if anyone is saying that our militaries will NOT be used to collect our guns after seeing what has happened in NO... well, that's just sad. IBTL The military had nothing to do with what happened in NOLA.  Try getting some facts. Gee, the Repubs did not renew the AWB..........yeah, no different.  You mention McCain and Guliani, two who will not get the nomination and two who are regularly trounced on this board......nothing new, oh swami. Comparing the situation the Swiss have to ours since the inception of this country shows that you have no grasp on facts or reality. larry, maybe i'm wrong here, but weren't NG units used in the house-to-house "search and rescue" missions that resulted in some of the confiscations? if i'm wrong, i stand corrected, but i don't think i am. as far as repubs and democrats on gun control, there are some democrats that won't stand for it, and there are plenty of republicans who would love more of it (two of which could be the aforementioned nomination candidates). i'm pretty sure you can find a list of these people *somewhere*. lastly, since you are so willing to point out my lack of factual grasp, why don't you fu*king educate me on how different our system (from inception) and the swiss system is. i didn't come in here throwing around snide little comments about others and not bother to back it up. i stated my opinion and that's it. First, I am not sure if NG units were even doing it, but if they were it was under STATE control.  There is a difference there that some just don't seem to get.  Now, if they had been FEDERALIZED and were doing it, there might be something to what he says, but that is not the case. You don't throw around snide comments???????????  That whole thing about the Swiss was just that.  Look it up.  Their world and ours are two different spheres of influence.  They aren't exactly a superpower.

ok man, i don't have anything against you, but since you keep coming after me, well, i'll type real slow, and i'll highlight to make it easy.

1) my comment about the swiss was stated in a semi-quizzical fashion, thus the "...while i don't know...", and "...it would seem..." which come just before it. if i had said, "uch, anyone with half a brain could see that it works for the swiss." or maybe, "...if you can't accept that it's worked for the swiss so well then..." but i didn't.

2) i didn't say the the US should adopt a swiss system either. it was an E-X-A-M-P-L-E. that's it.

3) ...about the NG, i didn't say, "...federal troops will march in under federal control and collect your weapons." see the red-colored letters above where it says "used". were they used in NO...? was it by the state? would it matter if the order came from state or federal level for NG guys to confiscate weapons (if that is actually what happened)? NO, they were USED to do it.

Quoted: I agree for the most part with all of this, the point of the clause was to allow congress to summon an army in the time of war, however they are supposed to disband it after the war has ended. The founders new that a standing army was a threat to freedom, and also a waste of tax dollars, if there is an 8 year war then fund the army no more than 4 times and then disband it after the war has ended.

Your fundamental assumptions here are incorrect. The Army has never been disbanded, just reduced in size, and that was done through funding. It was decided after the Korean War that it would be less expensive in both lives and treasure to go ahead and fund a large standing army, vice a small one.

So you are wrong about what the founding fathers did, there has always been an Army and a USMC, but not always a Navy. And you are incorrect about the expense of maintaining a professional standing army.

Quoted: 3) ...about the NG, i didn't say, "...federal troops will march in under federal control and collect your weapons." see the red-colored letters above where it says "used". were they used in NO...? was it by the state? would it matter if the order came from state or federal level for NG guys to confiscate weapons (if that is actually what happened)? NO, they were USED to do it.

Here's the rub. The standing army, which you fear, was not used to confiscate weapons. It was the "part-time" military under state, not federal, control that MAY have been used to confiscate weapons.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. How many wars have this country fought that were just? I can think of one, the revolutionary war, all other military spending on the part of the government besides that was a waste.

Quoted: That couldn’t be further from the truth. How many wars have this country fought that were just? I can think of one, the revolutionary war, all other military spending on the part of the government besides that was a waste.

Now the truth is in the open. You hate the military and believe the US to be an unjust militaristic state. Your "Constitutional" objection is merely an attempt to dress up your pacifism in more acceptable garb.

And you are still flat wrong about what the Constitution holds in regards to a standing army.

Quoted: This has probably been discussed in the past, however I would like all of you big government people out there to provide your arguments for why our government has intentionally violated the constitution by funding our army for a term greater than two years. The constitution does allow for constant funding of a Navy, however the funding of an army is explicitly prohibited for any term greater than two years. Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 12 The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Clause 13 The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy; http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Gee,

I guess Madison should have disbanded the Army in the middle of the War of 1812, while British troops were still swarming over the US.

I guess the Union should have ceased hostilities against the Confederacy on July 21, 1863 (two years after First Manassas).

I guess we should have gone home on December 9, 1943 (two years after declaring war).

I guess we should have left Korea in June 29, 1952 (two years after Truman ordered troops there).

I guess we should have left Vietnam in August 2, 1966 (two years after Gulf of Tonkin incident).

Now that I have made my sarcastic point, I will direct you to the DoD Comptroller's office which directs military spending in increments no longer than two years, fulfilling the Constitutional requirements you noted.

www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/index.html

Here's the rub. The standing army, which you fear, was not used to confiscate weapons. It was the "part-time" military under state, not federal, control that MAY have been used to confiscate weapons.

Government is government, armies are armies, federal or not it is a deminstration that people WILL follow orders, be it police or military, they will follows orders to the TEE.  If you really think otherwise than you are truely misguided.

Quoted: Here's the rub. The standing army, which you fear, was not used to confiscate weapons. It was the "part-time" military under state, not federal, control that MAY have been used to confiscate weapons. Government is government, armies are armies, federal or not it is a deminstration that people WILL follow orders, be it police or military, they will follows orders to the TEE.  If you really think otherwise than you are truely misguided.

Multiple Choice test:
1)You are:
a. ignorant
b. wrong
c. misguided
d. bull headed
e. all of the above

The correct answer is "e", which makes any further debate with you pointless as you refuse to address point "d" by addressing the facts brought up to counter your arguments in this thread, which would help alleviate point "a". However, since you refuse to address either one and admit you are "b" then there really isn't any point carrying on the conversation.

Gee, I guess Madison should have disbanded the Army in the middle of the War of 1812, while British troops were still swarming over the US. I guess the Union should have ceased hostilities against the Confederacy on July 21, 1863 (two years after First Manassas). I guess we should have gone home on December 9, 1943 (two years after declaring war). I guess we should have left Korea in June 29, 1952 (two years after Truman ordered troops there). I guess we should have left Vietnam in August 2, 1966 (two years after Gulf of Tonkin incident).

If you actually read the thread you will see that no one is saying you can't fund DURING A WAR, but you can't continue to fund during peace time, with that said lets examine your post further.

War of 1812
What was good about the war of 1812, can you give me any examples of why we needed to fight that pathetic and retarded war?

Civil War
Hah, I guess you really were brain washed by our commy school system huh? The Civil War was the most unjust war in the history of the United States. What was good about the civil war?

Both WWs
Both were unjust, though other than the revolutionary war they were probably the best case for war that our country has ever had.

Korea
HAHA, damn are you seriously going to defend Korea?

Vietnam
Yeah, that was certainly the most productive war of all time now wasn’t it?

Quoted: States in the union have EVERY right to secede. While I do not call it the war of northern aggression the North made it an issue by FORCEFULLY trying to "preserve the union" when ANY state has the RIGHT to leave the union

The truth survey says: you are right.  

Quoted: The world has changed a bit in the last 225 years.  There is no violation--it is funded for (I think) LESS THAN two years--annually--then reappropriated when that expires.  It ends up being ongoing, but I would hate to have to begin from scratch as invaders were pouring in--given today's logistics regarding transportation.   The tin foil aisle is over there ------------------------------------------------------>

Quoted: There's so much unconstitutional BULLSHIT out there that DOESN'T work to pick on, you'll forgive me if I give the boys in uniform a pass. Just wait until Hilary outlaws guns and that army is turned on you, there is a reason that the clause is in their, any army that can be turn on foreign powers can be turn on the people of it’s own nation. The proper way to defend a nation with decentralized private militia.

Good God man...


(click on the above image to go to the website)

Take your pick.