General Discussion

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)

18. A professional, standing army is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:24 PM

Apr 2013

They actually wanted something somewhat to what the Swiss have today. Everyone owns a gun and everyone is part of the militia. All able men are trained to use firearms and respond to a crisis.

They did not like the idea of a BIG standing army on the federal level.

They also looked at history and noticed a trend...especially with ancient Rome. When Rome was first founded, they had what we would call today a militia-like system. There was no central army. When Rome entered the imperial period, they did centralize and organize on the national level. And it was extremely successful...for awhile. They have an extremely powerful military that no other civilization could come close to matching. The problem though was it became extremely expensive. The empire was getting way too large to manage. And it started to fall apart.

You can't say that the same thing isn't happening to us. Our military is the best in the world. No one can match out power and strength. But it is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE! It's gotten so expensive that we are now discussing cutting our social and domestic programs to continue funding our war machines and maintain our empire and global influence. Meanwhile our own infrastructure and social institutions are beginning to crumble.

And that is why many of the founders didn't like the idea of a large standing army.

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
-Thomas Jefferson

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is there any reasonable argument that the second amendment is actually a good thing? [View all] DanTex Apr 2013 OP

We lose 10 times as many lives due to tobacco. And it's legal. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #1

But tobacco is not constitutionally protected, and nobody thinks it should be. (AFAIK) DanTex Apr 2013 #4

And very rarely does the tobacco user SheilaT Apr 2013 #6

Good response. AlinPA Apr 2013 #29

Maybe you missed the part about second hand smoke,,,, geckosfeet Apr 2013 #70

No, I didn't. Reread my answer. SheilaT Apr 2013 #80

I see. Well, tobacco kills by a different mechanism. And it does not kill right away. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #82

You realize that guns cause instant death Progressive dog Apr 2013 #108

Nonsense. beevul Apr 2013 #116

Yeah, real heavy taxes on devices designed to kill Progressive dog Apr 2013 #118

You said... beevul Apr 2013 #120

Guns sre designed to kill Progressive dog Apr 2013 #121

And yet...most aren't used for that. beevul Apr 2013 #123

So you agree that guns are designed to kill Progressive dog Apr 2013 #124

I agree that they're designed to propel a projectile... beevul Apr 2013 #127

Guns are designed to kill, Progressive dog Apr 2013 #133

I don't notice them being used for doorstops...... lastlib Apr 2013 #126

You don't notice most of them bsing used... beevul Apr 2013 #128

Oh yeah you do, they make lots of noise Progressive dog Apr 2013 #135

Almost all guns are bought for one of two purposes jmowreader Apr 2013 #159

Target shooting is not practice killing hack89 Apr 2013 #189

There are two gun stores less than a mile from my house jmowreader Apr 2013 #192

Competitive target shooting uses none of those targets. hack89 Apr 2013 #193

I know. And how many of you are there? jmowreader Apr 2013 #194

So where is the carnage from all these highly trained killers? hack89 Apr 2013 #196

What a stupid thing to say. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #169

Sure, then explain what they are designed for Progressive dog Apr 2013 #171

"Guns sre designed to kill. It is their only reason to exist." Yet millions of Democrats disagree. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #186

Guns are designed to kill is fact not opinion Progressive dog Apr 2013 #187

You say "Millions of Americans believe the earth is flat." Good luck with your flat-earth meetings. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #197

You can read some Progressive dog Apr 2013 #198

Yep. Sometines they do. Usually death is caused by blood loss though. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #134

Smoking is restricted, regulated, and heavily taxed Progressive dog Apr 2013 #112

so what? why shouldnt kids learn to shoot. most seem to enjoy it. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #161

So kids should be able to do anything they enjoy Progressive dog Apr 2013 #162

Because you believe a lot of preconceived notions and stereotypes? geckosfeet Apr 2013 #163

No, I'm just going by what you say Progressive dog Apr 2013 #164

You don't have to. But it's a good lesson. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #165

I'm glad you learned Progressive dog Apr 2013 #166

If guns were outlawed, many of the people would die, anyway. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #167

You say, "Guns exist for one reason and one reason only." Yet millions of Democrats don't agree. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #185

Yes, the 2nd Amendment IS a Good Thing, and the OP is Completely Wrong. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #81

All you've done is explained why it made sense in 1789. jeff47 Apr 2013 #84

You've never heard of an armed insurrection? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #92

Try actually reading what is written. jeff47 Apr 2013 #109

Let's take another look at Libya. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #136

Quick! Divert again!!!!! jeff47 Apr 2013 #147

You're being intentionally obtuse. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #149

You're ignoring the 200 years of history since the 2nd was ratified. jmg257 Apr 2013 #160

Tell that to Eisenhower. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #170

What would I do? jmg257 Apr 2013 #202

I own a well-regulated clock. It keeps time perfectly. (end) Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #203

That's wonderful. Is it regulated by the state, according to federal guidelines? jmg257 Apr 2013 #204

An armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against tyranny? Here in the U.S.? Paladin Apr 2013 #115

Dick Cheney never lost any sleep.... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #140

I've owned guns for the last 50 years. They don't scare me. Paladin Apr 2013 #143

So in other words, all you have is name calling. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #168

It sounds like you still have a lot of things to prove to yourself. Paladin Apr 2013 #188

Armed insurrection made us lose Vietnam? tblue Apr 2013 #129

You're aware, aren't you, that the Vietnamese say that war as a war for independence, right? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #137

nice try. spanone Apr 2013 #102

... that standing armies, in time of peace, Blue4Texas Apr 2013 #154

This post is not about tabacco. brush Apr 2013 #87

Tobacco is regulated and highly taxed to offset the cost of illness... Walk away Apr 2013 #156

I have a firearm for self protection. Throd Apr 2013 #2

From whom? femmocrat Apr 2013 #5

I don't have a specific name. Throd Apr 2013 #7

I never get that meme. Fire extinguishers weren't upaloopa Apr 2013 #21

Different tools for different purposes. Throd Apr 2013 #22

My point is you stand a better chance of being upaloopa Apr 2013 #24

I don't think that is true. Throd Apr 2013 #26

Obviously upaloopa Apr 2013 #28

it's true. veganlush Apr 2013 #51

On a broad and general basis perhaps... Pelican Apr 2013 #68

What you "think" doesn't change anything. morningfog Apr 2013 #60

You can't apply a broadly general statistical probability to a specific individual. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #69

Duh. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #144

No argument. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #145

No, fire extinguishers are designed to put out fires... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #25

I'm on a iPod so I can't get the study but women are four times upaloopa Apr 2013 #31

Well, post it when you can. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #63

A number of studies. EOTE Apr 2013 #46

This is why depressed people shouldn't own guns. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #93

Or people in general. EOTE Apr 2013 #98

Precisely. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #94

How about the six people around you accidentally shot when you jump at shadows? Robb Apr 2013 #99

Even without any further information, I can tell you it's not improving your survival prospects. 2ndAmForComputers Apr 2013 #195

There is a difference between a reasonable argument and a convincing argument. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #3

Erm, not so fast Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #8

I don't entirely disagree. DanTex Apr 2013 #12

Understand you'd still have the Navy, the Marines (part of the Navy), Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #17

You may be right. Something to think about at least. DanTex Apr 2013 #23

But for Iraq, Bush did use the National Guard as though they were regular Army, tblue37 Apr 2013 #77

Yeah, but that came later in the war, when they were having trouble replacing the ones who... Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #78

No. National Guard units were present the entire war. (nt) jeff47 Apr 2013 #86

Perhaps you should move back to reality. jeff47 Apr 2013 #85

You need to reread my post, this time with comprehension. n/t Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #106

No, I comprehended it. You apparently need to take your own advice. jeff47 Apr 2013 #111

Happened after every war until Korea. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #152

Interesting post. I have never considered that angle. nt Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #91

When are gun threads going back to the gungeon? NightWatcher Apr 2013 #9

When you can pry them from their cold. dead, hands! Fuddnik Apr 2013 #10

When people stop committing mass murders with guns? Rex Apr 2013 #11

Should have happened long ago. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #71

Yes. It has to do with the right of people to protect their homes. Bucky Apr 2013 #13

Your last sentence tblue Apr 2013 #132

The original intent is out dated but the upaloopa Apr 2013 #14

The bulk of scholarly opinion does not agree with your view... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #45

Damn good question, DanTex. Thanks. (nt) Paladin Apr 2013 #15

Hmmm. What percent of gun owners use them in crimes? (nt) The Straight Story Apr 2013 #16

No, what percent of crimes use guns? morningfog Apr 2013 #61

So in other words, you don't want to answer The Straight Story Apr 2013 #64

Still the wrong question. I gave you the better quesiton. morningfog Apr 2013 #75

Irrelevant to policy? The Straight Story Apr 2013 #83

A professional, standing army is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid davidn3600 Apr 2013 #18

That is true. But times have changed, I think. DanTex Apr 2013 #20

Dan, consider what your statement's consequences have had for our past, and for... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #53

I believe these militias were the only thing the Founders had in mind: freshwest Apr 2013 #90

I'd like to see the militia called to serve. XRubicon Apr 2013 #19

So what you are saying is that oneshooter Apr 2013 #44

Well, my read of the constitution says gun owners are part of a well regulated militia XRubicon Apr 2013 #58

Other way 'round. Igel Apr 2013 #73

I like blue cheese dressing on my word salad XRubicon Apr 2013 #76

Your flippant response does nothing to counter that very valid point. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #146

Thanks for your opinion XRubicon Apr 2013 #148

Likewise. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #191

Your first paragraph was full of misinformation. former9thward Apr 2013 #27

LOL. You need to do a little reading. DanTex Apr 2013 #30

Other than LOL you have no information. former9thward Apr 2013 #34

And neither do you. Except for a bunch of historically ignorant claims about the second amendment. DanTex Apr 2013 #35

What Justice agrees with you? former9thward Apr 2013 #36

Umm, all of them except for the right-wingers. Did you actually read the Stevens dissent? DanTex Apr 2013 #38

Umm fits you. former9thward Apr 2013 #41

So you're going to simply ignore the Stevens dissent? DanTex Apr 2013 #42

All 4 signed Beyer's dissent also. former9thward Apr 2013 #47

And all 4 very clearly stated that it's about militia participation, and it does not protect DanTex Apr 2013 #49

So you know more about what the nine justices think than Beyer does. former9thward Apr 2013 #54

Well, I simply read what they say. DanTex Apr 2013 #56

Read the Heller dissent. All nine agree that it's an individual right. X_Digger Apr 2013 #39

Wrong. DanTex Apr 2013 #40

No, Stevens is talking about the purpose. Are you asserting that he contradicted himself? X_Digger Apr 2013 #43

He's says that whether it is an individual right doesn't matter, DanTex Apr 2013 #48

Lol, he says it's an individual right, then talks about the level of permissible regulation. X_Digger Apr 2013 #52

...and he's saying that it has nothing to do with private civilian use of firearms. DanTex Apr 2013 #55

Which is about the purpose, yes. X_Digger Apr 2013 #57

*sigh* A right that has nothing to do with private civilian gun ownership. DanTex Apr 2013 #59

An individual right, yes. X_Digger Apr 2013 #67

The paragraph in question.... Jeff In Milwaukee Apr 2013 #141

I've read it, all of it, thanks. X_Digger Apr 2013 #142

Having read it is nice Jeff In Milwaukee Apr 2013 #200

Ignoring his own words? That takes willful misapprehension. n/t X_Digger Apr 2013 #201

Short answer: Yes, there are many reasonable arguments in favor of the second amendment. Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #32

In other words, "because we're stuck with it". DanTex Apr 2013 #33

I said a great deal more than that... Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #37

If only there was some process by which to change the constitution jeff47 Apr 2013 #89

Some people have the idea that insurection means engaging authority in pitched battles. nt Demo_Chris Apr 2013 #95

That would be the only reason you need guns to do so. jeff47 Apr 2013 #110

It's an over age Sacred Cow on it's last legs whose usefulness died long ago. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #50

I don't know about all that, but I'll keep the .38 by the bed, thank you. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #62

A glass of warm milk would probably serve you better. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #66

I prefer mine cold, ice cream is even better! Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #113

Well, ... oldhippie Apr 2013 #65

One of these things is not like the others! (From _Sesame Street_.) tblue37 Apr 2013 #79

So why don't you lead the movement to repeal it? hack89 Apr 2013 #72

We're stuck with a lot of things OwnedByCats Apr 2013 #74

No. Not at all. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #88

My view is that our energies are better spent BainsBane Apr 2013 #96

Every challange to the Second Amendment strengthens opponents of reasonable gun safety laws Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #100

yes, i believe i have a right to defend myself. DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #97

I wish the mods could move this to the gungeon. Iggo Apr 2013 #101

Damn Skippy! nt MrScorpio Apr 2013 #103

For hunting and self-defense. TimberValley Apr 2013 #104

We can't know how our political culture would have evolved without the Second Amendment Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #105

2nd Amendment OLDMDDEM Apr 2013 #107

IMHO: NO CTyankee Apr 2013 #114

Is the second ammendment a good thing? No. Hand me my black Sharpie marker. I'll take care of it. hunter Apr 2013 #117

I think it is Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #119

I support allowing firearm ownership though federal law, not as a "constitutional right" NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #122

Apples and oranges. beevul Apr 2013 #150

Whatever Analogy you want to make, gun ownership should be NYC Liberal Apr 2013 #178

Yeah, I got one for you... cynatnite Apr 2013 #125

Shoot him for 'coming near'? tblue Apr 2013 #130

Given how violent he was...YES! n/t cynatnite Apr 2013 #131

No he prolly wouldn't be in prison, premium Apr 2013 #139

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #138

As it is written? No. Politicub Apr 2013 #151

Since you've answered your own question... discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #153

The right to defend Blue4Texas Apr 2013 #155

Of course not. It's bullshit. Uzair Apr 2013 #157

You think it's obsolete. Bake Apr 2013 #158

Yes: we're an incredibly violent country, which is why people have guns Recursion Apr 2013 #172

Canada has a higher homicide rate than the US? LOL. You're slipping... DanTex Apr 2013 #173

D'oh Recursion Apr 2013 #174

So now the list contains zero countries that remotely resemble the US. DanTex Apr 2013 #175

No, that's who resembles the US. Recursion Apr 2013 #176

So you honestly think we are more similar to El Salvador than Canada or the UK? DanTex Apr 2013 #177

Entirely. This isn't some rhetorical trick; I'm totally serious. Recursion Apr 2013 #179

You continue to ignore the point that in other categories of violent crime, we much more closely DanTex Apr 2013 #180

Our life expectancy is closer to Mexico's than Canada's. And our Gini coefficient leaves me no doubt Recursion Apr 2013 #181

Mexico has rampant poverty, and per capita GDP of about $16K per year. DanTex Apr 2013 #183

Incidentally, about 100 days of our life expectancy is lost due to guns. DanTex Apr 2013 #184

That said, there are parts of the US that are like the social democracies Recursion Apr 2013 #182

Looks like old data. And you don't list any link, and there are no references. baldguy Apr 2013 #190

Dude, now you're just grasping at straws Uzair Apr 2013 #199