Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hugh Damright
I can, and I think that was the general idea
|
Yes it was..for the State's Militias.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hugh Damright
a standing army is a select force which can turn or be turned against the people and so it is a threat to their ability to freely govern themselves
|
And that is why it was so important for the states to be able to arm and control their militias hence the 2A and the concessions in Article One to allow the sates to appoint their officers. The idea was that the bulk of our National Defense would rest with the state militias and so a standing army would be by design smaller and therefore unable to stand against the states if a tyrant controlled the standing army.
Hugh, ever wonder why the BOR did not originally apply to the states? I see your debating in another thread about the McDonald case and you then must know that the Founding Fathers thought quite differently about state power and rights than we do today. We are much more federalized today and the FFs didn't foresee that IMO. That is another argument but the state militia THEN was the military bulwark against tryanny. The state militia WAS the people's militia THEN. That militia became the NG but states may still under the 2A raise and equip a miltia if they so choose, but I doubt we will ever see it.