Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So the Dolt45 tax plan kicks in ... [View all]aggiesal
(10,979 posts)25. Read the Federalist Papers ...
When they discussed this amendment, they mentioned having to do training.
Described, limiting the size of the Army, so that the Federal government could
not overrun the state militia.
This premise turn into our State & National Guard system.
Federalist Papers #29
Unlike militias of the past, (Alexander) Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military.
"It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states."
(i.e. National Guard)
One major change would be the personnel who the militias consist of. Instead of just a disorganized group made up of random people, the militias will be composed of well trained civilians on the same level or near that of a military soldier.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,..."
As you can see the Federalist believed that a citizen militia should be trained at or near a military soldier.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's not a millionaire thing. Lots of households make $100K a year with two wage earners.
haele
Mar 2019
#21
In some areas it is...but make no mistake these people are upper middle class - they are doing
UniteFightBack
Mar 2019
#30
With a 30 - 40 year mortgage and a hefty down-payment (usually a small inheritance or family "loan")
haele
Mar 2019
#23
There are other SALT deductions that are capped and those are payroll related. Also if you have more
uponit7771
Mar 2019
#8
Militia, State or National Guard service was never a prerequisite to gun ownership in the U.S.
meathead
Mar 2019
#24
Yet gun ownership in America has always been an individual right not linked to the miltia
hack89
Mar 2019
#31
You just never get it. No one is discussing this with you. Keep screaming at the wind.
Squinch
Mar 2019
#54
I remember reading that this extremely wide interpretation of the second amendment
Karadeniz
Mar 2019
#56
With all the important stuff going on in USA, there are still a few for whom GUNZ are all important.
Hoyt
Mar 2019
#57
Yet none of them spoke about individual rights concerning guns at the Constitutional Convention ...
aggiesal
Mar 2019
#71
A person that owns a business having a down year in revenue can easily rack that up.
Blue_true
Mar 2019
#63
I think the rule is if you file early, you expect a return, file later expect to pay.
Blue_true
Mar 2019
#64