Oh! What utter HORSESHIT! It OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be doing it's job WELL then, now would it? Nice try with selective quoting, but it didn't work. It just showed that your original contention has no basis in reality.

I would much rather have an incompetent military than one that does it’s job “well”, that’s one thing that I know for certain.

Quick history lesson to point out the banality of the original argument.

In 1789, Congress, pursuant to the powers granted in Article I, Section 12 established the 1st American Regiment, a STANDING army. During the Indian wars along the frontier, a period that lasted the whole of the early national period, the US kept a standing army garrisoned in various forts throughout the region. From 1793 to 1795, The Legion of the United States fought a very successful Indian war along the frontier. This rather large standing army, with its scary martial sounding name, was funded by Congress under three separate yearly budgets.

We have had a standing army, funded through annual or biannual budgets, every year since 1789, the year after the Constitution was ratified. To imply that a standing army is unconstitutional, when controlled by the civiialin government and funded as required in Article I, Section 12, flies in the face of history, and of textual analysis of the Constitution.

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.

Gun owners should be against the military?????????  How old are you...........12?

Most of us "gun owners" are vets and having a much better understanding and view of the military than you, we don't fear it and are not against it.

Believing that we should have a strong military makes us "big government" fans??????????  Each post just verifies how little you know or understand.

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?

I do agree with a few points based on a historical outlook

Alot of standing armies have been used against its people in the past

And Militia are a good thing, But I dont personally think it should be our only defense . . .

Lets not all forget its Militia that made this country a country, But personally Looking around at my local gun buffs that I shoot with - I can only pick out a hand full that I would want to go up against a trained army with . . . .  Im just saying, people now days are barely proud to be american let alone be part of a militia and let alone fight an invader . . .

Either way - everything needs funding - If we all were part of militia's we would just be funding it out of our own pockets . . . no to mention - I dont think my local militia could afford daisy cutters and F-18's . . . .  No Sea Sparrows for me . . . .

Im not flaming in any way . . . Just stating my opionions as well . . . .

There are militias around today - that will fight - they would fight our own military if they had to- They just arent that numerous

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.

Very convincing arguement there.  That sounds pretty reasonable, honestly.

I wanna see how this private militia will be able to fund itself to adequately defend the US. We're supposed to defend ourselves against foreign armies with bombers and fighter jets using what?

The smell of troll is thick in here.

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.

Quoted: The smell of troll is thick in here.

And stupidity. I smell a lot of that too.

Quoted: Oh! What utter HORSESHIT! It OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be doing it's job WELL then, now would it? Nice try with selective quoting, but it didn't work. It just showed that your original contention has no basis in reality. I would much rather have an incompetent military than one that does it’s job “well”, that’s one thing that I know for certain.

What an ABSOLUTELY FUCKING STUPID STATEMENT!

Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? S I W D Constitution Ch Its your characters stamina. Saving throw tables are calculated by this score.

you get my vote for Geekiest Post of the Day

Quoted: I do agree with a few points based on a historical outlook Alot of standing armies have been used against its people in the past And Militia are a good thing, But I dont personally think it should be our only defense . . . Lets not all forget its Militia that made this country a country, But personally Looking around at my local gun buffs that I shoot with - I can only pick out a hand full that I would want to go up against a trained army with . . . .  Im just saying, people now days are barely proud to be american let alone be part of a militia and let alone fight an invader . . . Either way - everything needs funding - If we all were part of militia's we would just be funding it out of our own pockets . . . no to mention - I dont think my local militia could afford daisy cutters and F-18's . . . .  No Sea Sparrows for me . . . . Im not flaming in any way . . . Just stating my opionions as well . . . . There are militias around today - that will fight - they would fight our own military if they had to- They just arent that numerous

Go back and read Spade's post about the militia during the revolution before you claim that the militia made our country.

The last sentence in your post here really shows where you are coming from.

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
War of Northern Aggression
some would include the Indian Wars
Suppression of the Bonus Army March

Quoted: I do agree with a few points based on a historical outlook Alot of standing armies have been used against its people in the past And Militia are a good thing, But I dont personally think it should be our only defense . . . Lets not all forget its Militia that made this country a country, But personally Looking around at my local gun buffs that I shoot with - I can only pick out a hand full that I would want to go up against a trained army with . . . .  Im just saying, people now days are barely proud to be american let alone be part of a militia and let alone fight an invader . . . Either way - everything needs funding - If we all were part of militia's we would just be funding it out of our own pockets . . . no to mention - I dont think my local militia could afford daisy cutters and F-18's . . . .  No Sea Sparrows for me . . . . Im not flaming in any way . . . Just stating my opionions as well . . . . There are militias around today - that will fight - they would fight our own military if they had to- They just arent that numerous

I never thought the militia was to be relied on as our only defense.  It had always been my impression that it was ment to mostly disband the army unless needed and that the clause was in place with the assumption congress would not fund that which was not needed.  The originals posters idea that it was unconstitutional seems pretty out-there.  However, my notion that it flew in the face of the spirit of the arrangement may also be false.  Some well spoken arguements against that have been made.

Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? S I W D Constitution Ch Its your characters stamina. Saving throw tables are calculated by this score.

GEEK!!!

Quoted: I would much rather have an incompetent military than one that does it’s job “well”, that’s one thing that I know for certain.

Then it's obvious that you're a fucking idiot.

The military had nothing to do with what happened in NOLA. Try getting some facts.

First of all the military did illegally quarter in a church, second of all it’s extremely obvious that if the police will break their oath to uphold the constitution than so will the military.

Quoted: Well, this isn't the 1700's when you can just call up a bunch of Minutemen and have them show up with muskets and ammo and a 3 day supply of biscuits and be ready to fight. The nature of the threat has changed too. Now military powers around the world have a navy, air force, tanks, and paratroopers. When you have a standing threat, you must have a standing capability and the tools to deal with that threat. If you don't have a rather large standing army, then you can't train on and maintain the complex equipment that exists today that didn't in those days. Simply put, it's just not feasible.

It's perfectly feasible.  The minutemen of today just need to be appropriately armed.  

Quoted: Go back and read Spade's post about the militia during the revolution before you claim that the militia made our country. The last sentence in your post here really shows where you are coming from.

Not all of the militia had to be forced at gunpoint to fight.  When properly trained and not suffering from all elected leadership they could fight quite well and did in fact serve an instrumental role in some battles.  The bad did often outweigh the good, and Washington at times despised the militia.  I can see how, as he was burned several times.

Ive read Spades post . . . and I agree . . . . All im saying is militia alone wont be able to defend this country - Just like I dont think the standing military alone would be able to defend the country if we ever got heavily invaded

Its all a relative relationship - if this country were to be attacked - every yahoo would pick up their guns and fight along side the military . . .


To make my views bold and obvious:

I SUPPORT A STANDING ARMY - I SUPPORT THE BADDEST MOST KICK ASS ARMY ON THE PLANET 100%

I also support militia's . . . I think we have the right to them and I think we should have them

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.

Quoted: The military had nothing to do with what happened in NOLA. Try getting some facts. First of all the military did illegally quarter in a church, second of all it’s extremely obvious that if the police will break their oath to uphold the constitution than so will the military.

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.

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.

Your original trolling was anti-military, now it's anti-police.

I am beginning to smell anarchism in this thread.

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.

In the civil war were there not units sent to harras any sympathic towns are people even after the surrender?  I'm asking not being sarcastic.  This is something I had heard.

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. In the civil war were there not units sent to harras any sympathic towns are people even after the surrender?  I'm asking not being sarcastic.  This is something I had heard.

I don't know, but the War of Northern Aggression was an all out war, so I don't believe what happened during or shortly thereafter hardly applies to the subject at hand, which is beginning more and more to look to be simply justification for anarchy.

Quoted: Nothing says they can't fund it for two years, then at the end of that two years fund it for another two years and so on. Defense spending bills come up every year pretty much.... Your right nothing does say that, except for a little thing called common sense. You do understand that back in the day they didn’t have word processors and couldn’t make each clause of the constitution 400 pages long as to avoid loopholes that assholes would come up with hundreds of years later? Just like that assholes that say the right to keep and bear arms only extends to the militias.

Well, "common sense" injects someone's subjective take into the matter, and that scares me on constittutional matters.

Look at it this way, in favor of it being a 2 year leash on funding/excursions rather than a 2 year limit on having an army:

Read your way, the US troops would have to disengage and come home/go home any time the war they were in lasted more than 2 years.

I'd wager that most conflicts on the minds of the drafters lasted longer than that, and that that's not what they meant.    

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 don't get the pointless bickering.

The original poster's point is that a permanent standing army is not permitted due to Article I Section 12. The simple answer to this is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution disagree. The proof is that the First Congress (under the Constitution) established a standing army in 1789, and we have had one every year since then.

Washington helped write the Constitution, as did many member who served in the First Congress. They did not believe Article I Section 12 prohibited a standing army, only that such an army could not be funded for more than two years at a time. This has been the way we have operated for each of the past 216 years.

Constitutional amateur hour is in full swing again.

The intent of the two year requirement is so that Congress can't fund the army for, for example, 20 years.  Meanwhile, the executive goes apeshit and Congress can not do anything about it.  That was a problem in jolly old England.  Every two years the people's representatives get to exercise the power of the purse.

Can you imagine fighting the revolution if we could only have an Army for two years.  We would have had to surrender in 1777!  Duh!  Or maybe we should have surrendered to the Germans on December 7, 1943?  When the Founders wrote the constitution, they had just gone through a 8 year war.  They had fought long wars against the French - both cold and hot.  They were not naifs when it comes to National Security.  They knew all about prolonged conflict.

-green

Quoted: Quoted: Orwell84 are you implying that we should not keep a standing military ? Orwell84 Why dont you answer my simple question ?

Maybe I missed it wading through this BS, but DID he ever answer u-baddog's simple question?

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.

Quoted: 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.

Not true, says the military historian. I've read plenty of accounts of military folks telling officers to shove stupid orders up their ass.  Granted, mostly based on tactical considerations, but I could easily see them ignoring illegal orders. Surveys of military personell have also borne this out.


On the militia/standing Army topic:
The Civil War is, actually a perfect example of this. Note the unit names. 47th Pennsylvania Infantry. 69th New York.  9th Texas.
You had a small standing army that became the core of a huge number of what were, for all intents and purposes, locally organized militias that popped up. On both sides.
That's how it's designed to work. And still does today, technically. It's what the Constitution calls for.

Quoted: 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;

What the hell is so hard to understand about this?  Congress is given a power to raise & support armies.  That power entitles them to appropriate money to support said army for 2 years.  At the end of those two years, they still have that power.  We approve a defense budget every year.    This is one of the few constitutional things that congress actually does.

Quoted: I don't get the pointless bickering. The original poster's point is that a permanent standing army is not permitted due to Article I Section 12. The simple answer to this is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution disagree. The proof is that the First Congress (under the Constitution) established a standing army in 1789, and we have had one every year since then. Washington helped write the Constitution, as did many member who served in the First Congress. They did not believe Article I Section 12 prohibited a standing army, only that such an army could not be funded for more than two years at a time. This has been the way we have operated for each of the past 216 years. Constitutional amateur hour is in full swing again.

I can't argue with you there.  I think you have the point that settles the debate.  You could however be a little less insulting to those (excluding the real asses) that do learn something here.  I know this is your area of study so I like to get your input but lots of people have misconseptions of the constitution.  I'm sure there are fields of study you have an opinion in but may be ill informed.  I'll admit I just changed my mind today, because my opinion on the intent was incorrect it would seem.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Orwell84 are you implying that we should not keep a standing military ? Orwell84 Why dont you answer my simple question ? Maybe I missed it wading through this BS, but DID he ever answer u-baddog's simple question? Suuuuuuuuure--1/4 of the way down on page two: Quoted: Orwell84 Why dont you answer my simple question ? Yes, militia is the best way to defend our nation, a standing military can to easily be pointed at it’s people.

Cool.  Saw all I need to see in this thread.

Quoted: Quoted: 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; What the hell is so hard to understand about this?  Congress is given a power to raise & support armies.  That power entitles them to appropriate money to support said army for 2 years.  At the end of those two years, they still have that power.  We approve a defense budget every year.    This is one of the few constitutional things that congress actually does.

Yeah, like you, I fail to see how a lot of people can't grasp this simple concept. Every 2 years doesn't mean a standing Army should've been disbanded 2 years after we adopted the document.

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.

This kind of argument is like saying you should put out the campfire that keeps the wolves at bay because you are afraid you might get burned by the fire...

For the sake of argument, let us say we do decide to go with a mlitia.  So does that mean that every man has an M16, a LAW rocket, and grenades stored at his house?  Do some guys get to buy their own M1 Abrams?  Who maintains those Abrams or Apache helicopters?  What happens when you need to mobilizea force, do you confiscate all the publicly owned vehicles in the local area?  

I will let my questions speak for themself.  I understand what you are saying, but I think it is somewhat obvious you really havne't thought this through beyond the "this really makes me angry" stage...

this is an amusing little fishing expedition, so i'll bite.  i just hope you have some good monofil.

you have clearly stated that a militia is the best way to defend the nation.  as with any philosophical discussion, the semantics come first:

militia--1. soldiers who are also civilians: an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies.

now, let's look at the world we live in.  first and foremost, it is a nuclear world.  now, are you suggesting that the best way to defend our nation is with a network of privately-owned nuclear weapons, which must be delivered by privately-owned platforms?  surely not.  

so how do we handle strategic defense in militia fashion?  do we own the arsenal as a nation, but operate it in times of crisis by civilians who have been trained to do so?  ok, but how do we maintain it in the meantime?  how do we coordinate it?    how do we man the watches 24/7/365?  part-time, unpaid individuals?  i can see it now:

"well, i'm a bartender 11 months a year, but every august, i con a boomer in the north atlantic."

so we need a professional, standing organization to provide for strategic defense.  this alone is enough to destroy your point, but let's move it over to the conventional side of the house.  

let's see, we need pilots for all those glamorous, privately-owned fighter planes.  and, according to the militia model, we need amateur pilots.  guys who don't spend all their time learning how to conduct air combat.  and most importantly, guys who cannot be forced to fly if they don't feel like it.  guys who can say "i don't really think that's a threat, so i'm not going up today.  after all, aviation fuel prices have gone through the roof lately."

even if we get those guys deployed, we need pilots for the decidedly unglamorous task of airlift.  and who is going to choose to do that, 24/7/365, for free?  we can't make them do it, because that would be tyranny.  so do we just rotate guys in?  you know, ask undertrained and unmotivated guys to fly a 130 into a short-strip in bad weather, for reasons that aren't explained to him due to OPSEC?

so i guess we need professionals to provide the air wing.

now we get to the ground-pounders.  "surely," you say, "surely we can eliminate professionals on the ground.  look at the performance of the NG."  well, that's true.  the NG does a phenomenal job.  but again, aren't there thousands and thousands of active-duty guys running the schools, and maintaining the equipment, and coordinating the operations of the guardsmen?  you know--keeping the army together when the part-timers are away?  guys who have spent their entire adult lives learning how to best destroy the enemy?

so i suppose we need professionals on the ground.

in the modern world in which we live, we need professional soldiers, and sailors, and airmen.  QED, we need a standing army.

and you need better fishing line.

You know what concerns me most about this post-

The fact that so many say there will never be an outright ban on arms, have y'all been asleep? What do you think ALL thes Anti-Gun laws are heading toward? It dang sure aint more freedom, and dont think for a minute that someone like Hillary WOULDN'T ban ALL guns if she could.

Quoted: This kind of argument is like saying you should put out the campfire that keeps the wolves at bay because you are afraid you might get burned by the fire... For the sake of argument, let us say we do decide to go with a mlitia.  So does that mean that every man has an M16, a LAW rocket, and grenades stored at his house?  Do some guys get to buy their own M1 Abrams?  Who maintains those Abrams or Apache helicopters?  What happens when you need to mobilizea force, do you confiscate all the publicly owned vehicles in the local area?   I will let my questions speak for themself.  I understand what you are saying, but I think it is somewhat obvious you really havne't thought this through beyond the "this really makes me angry" stage...

AND

What makes anybody think local militias would not be a threat to the people if the was no standing Army or a small standing Army…

If a standing Army is a threat then what happens if the is no significant standing Army and a local entity or State decides to increase the size of its militia?

Does the group with the biggest militia make the rules?

Be careful what you wish for… especially when you don’t understand the consequences.

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?

Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? And why do I care what it says?

Me hopes you are kidding.

Quoted: Quoted: Whats a Constitution? And why do I care what it says?

Me hopes you are kidding.

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

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.

Hammer, meet nail.
Perfect.

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.

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...

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.

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.

The Arizona constitution also enumerates that:

1. Composition of militia

Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the laws of the United States or of this state.

Therefore, anyone 18-45 is the militia.

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.