Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Remote-District-9255 t1_j9ylks9 wrote

You think the standing national army is the modern day militia? What did they call an army back then?


Indian_Bob t1_j9z2o0l wrote

They didn’t have an army back then, just militias.


dungone t1_j9z5v9v wrote

They called it a militia. They didn’t have a standing army. They didn’t have military academies, the only people who would get a military education were wealthy aristocrats.


AlienPathfinder t1_j9z9gja wrote

??? It was called the Continental Army led by Generals, Colonels, etc. They had a uniform and bases. Your reference to military academies is simply non-sensical and I won't address it further. There were also groups of people who would fight alongside the army. These were the militias. The modern day National Guard is best described as weekend army.


dungone t1_j9zdaxg wrote

The Continental Army was formed after the war started and consisted of completely untrained volunteers. Do you see what this means? The first battles were fought by militias. In some cases, militias from New York and Massachusetts had to be incorporated into the Continental Army. The Continental Army was disbanded immediately after the Treaty of Paris was signed, which ended the war. So only the militias were left after that. The way you would become an officer in the Revolutionary War was very simple - you'd be a rich guy, maybe you had a little military experience, you were friends with someone like Ben Franklin and he'd vouch for you (Lafayette), or you'd get off a boat and introduce yourself to George Washington (Pulaski).

The first military academy in the USA wasn't founded until 1802. Given your limited knowledge I can see why you don't want to talk about that. Just a reminder that the Revolutionary War started before then, in 1775. And it's kind of "important", you know, if you want to talk about the entire concept of a professional army that isn't just a ragtag group of citizen soldiers. Remember - at the time when the US Constitution was signed, in 1787, there was no professional army, only militias, and the federal government was completely broke.


AlienPathfinder t1_j9zh76w wrote

I think you are regurgitating the point of view of your history professors. The people that wrote the constitution were aware of the idea of an army yet chose to protect the militia, not the army. They were not stupid and would have said army if that' s what they meant.

What do military academies and nepotism in the army have to do with what we are discussing?


dungone t1_j9zjibd wrote

My history professor? You mean the military officers who taught me military history when I served in the US military? You're telling me that I shouldn't listen to people who actually understand history? Instead I should listen to whom, exactly? Some redneck terrorist who thinks the Founding Fathers whisper sweet nothings in his ear?

Everything I told you is the context that you have to understand if you have any hope of understanding what the 2nd Amendment means by the "well regulated militia" and why it says they are necessary for the security of the state. It's referring to the state-level militias at a time when those were the only military means for the USA to defend itself. It's not referring to some right wing lunatics practicing to overthrow the government in some backwoods red state.


Remote-District-9255 t1_ja23w7o wrote

Your interpretation means that regular citizens can't own firearms. That's ok if you and your little army friends think that, but you know that's never how it's been done here right? Like never.


dungone t1_ja3ly0r wrote

It doesn't distinguish between the militia and the citizenry. The purpose is to secure the state. You have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. That's your right as a "regular citizen".

This amendment has been completely perverted by traitors over time where now, people like you think it means that you, as an anti-government terrorist, dangerous lunatic, secessionist, white supremacist, serial killer, mass murder, or whatever other rogue element in society you belong to, believe that you have a constitutional right to threaten the security of the state.


Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6qr1k wrote

Are you serious? It has nothing to do with the integrity of the state. If the founders gave a shit about that we would all be eating tea and crumpets right now. The entire point of the constitution is to limit the states power over the individual. Our education system has completely failed you


dungone t1_ja6qx7j wrote

Have you ever actually read it?

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

I guess you never read it.


Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6rfhq wrote

Yes of course I have. There is obviously a huge debate as to exactly what each word means in a 18th century context as well as the intent of the amendment. The point you need to deal with is why it has been implemented the way it has for the entirety of the nation's existence. Feel free to advocate for a change to the amendment or a new one, but to try and say this one means something totally different is asinine


mekonsrevenge t1_ja3qqzb wrote

The issue then was a standing army. Most Americans opposed the concept bitterly, assuming it would lead to an authoritarian state. In times of war, the idea was to raise an army of citizen soldiers who would return to civilian life asap Even after the war, the standing army was a small group meant to protect the president and congress.


UniversalMomentum t1_ja0wx76 wrote

But you're trying to mix terms from now and then, which makes no sense anyway.

I think all these terms are rather generic and don't have precise meanings and never did. A militia and an army can be the same thing and they can also be totally different things opposing each other.

That's what happens when you use terms that don't have much meaning!