Skip to main content

View Diary: What IS a well-regulated militia? (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Second Amendment Got Mangled In The Editing (0+ / 0-)

    journeyman had a nice summary about the 2nd Amenment which apprently really is about being able to resist the US government.  It's an anachronism, and dimbulbs think it's there to kick the kenyan out the White House, but there it is.

    ".................James Madison, who penned the Second Amendment, intended it to placate the fears of those concerned about a strong federal standing army, and argument he had already made in the Federalist 46:

    Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Fœderal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments, with the People on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by Governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
    Likewise, Alexander Hamilton, one of the prime champions of the constitution tried to placate those terrified of central authority in the Federalist 29:
    if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
    Moreover, when Madison penned the original article in the Bill of Rights, he undoubtedly had the Virginia Declaration of rights in mind.  That document, written principally by George Mason, one of the few attendees to the Constitutional Convention that refused to sign (on the grounds that it did not include sufficient protection against central tyranny, read as follows:
    XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
    The Second Amendment was all about resistance to federal authority and standing armies.  It was indeed about the ability to shoot and kill soldiers of the United States Army.
     It is now a dangerous anachronism and it ought to be repealed.............."

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:53:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  These historical arguments apply to 13 states. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Agathena

      Not to random self-selected citizens. State governments each responsible for a militia trained to common standards.

      The militia was around to repel invasion or put down insurrection.

      The "standing army" issue is a separate one.

      Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

      by dadadata on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:10:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They echo Machiavelli... (0+ / 0-)

      ...in this condemnation of a mercenary (standing) army as a possible tool for tyranny.  The militia in this context is a citizen army in the manner of the early Roman republic.  A muster of qualified, trained citizen-soldiers.  These were men well-educated in history and wished to establish a system that would counter the Sforzas and Mariuses of the world.  It has nothing to do with the private ownership of guns and everything to do with a citizen army.  As I said above, this is all about the dream of a nation ruled and defended by its citizens.

      Tell me what to write. tellmewhattowrite.com 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

      by rbird on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:26:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site