You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why we have the 2nd Amendment.
- Thread starter Prof Young
- Start date
Andy Blozinski
New member
It's actually unconstitutional for us to have a standing army. A portion of the reason for the 2nd amendment was so the nation could forgo a standing army and muster one quickly only as necessary in an emergency.
Actually, we've had a standing army [of some size] since the Founding.It's actually unconstitutional for us to have a standing army.
(BTW: Where does it say NonStandingArmy in the Constitution?)
While the Founders believed that a standing army would too easily be a tool for tyrants, and wrote the 2nd Amendment to negate this possibility as much as possible, they did recognize the need for a standing NAVY.
Remember the tech of the times. In the 1780s, sailing ships were the most complex and powerful weapon systems that existed. You couldn't call up farmers and train them to run a ship in a couple weeks. You needed permanent crews.
Navy's had three primary functions, deal with other navies, exercise power against shore (to the range of their cannon) and most importantly, rapidly transport troops and supplies over long distances.
Doing that well meant you needed trained and experienced people, and the only way they get that way is on the job training, so a standing Navy was a necessity, where a standing army wasn't seen to be that way, since militia's could do the Army's job, mostly.
The Constitution doesn't expressly forbid a standing army, so, saying a standing army is unconstitutional is not correct.
Remember the tech of the times. In the 1780s, sailing ships were the most complex and powerful weapon systems that existed. You couldn't call up farmers and train them to run a ship in a couple weeks. You needed permanent crews.
Navy's had three primary functions, deal with other navies, exercise power against shore (to the range of their cannon) and most importantly, rapidly transport troops and supplies over long distances.
Doing that well meant you needed trained and experienced people, and the only way they get that way is on the job training, so a standing Navy was a necessity, where a standing army wasn't seen to be that way, since militia's could do the Army's job, mostly.
The Constitution doesn't expressly forbid a standing army, so, saying a standing army is unconstitutional is not correct.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
One of the most important reasons for the navy at that time and what convinced many of the need for a standing navy, in spite of those reservations, was protecting merchant ships...
largely against Muslim terrorists hijacking ships and ransoming (or beheading) crew.... leading to the Barbary Wars.
largely against Muslim terrorists hijacking ships and ransoming (or beheading) crew.... leading to the Barbary Wars.
This whole thing could be put to rest in an honest court. Either way: pro-gun, anti-gun it could have been settled. But instead they choose to use it as a political tool; this and other hot button issues. The gun rights thing could be well settled by now.
Every intelligent adult knows what the second amendment really means - it doesn’t matter if everyone agrees to what the second amendment intended, everyone knows exactly what the second amendment means.
But instead, those who have the power to settle it leave it open to go either way... depending on who can get the most mileage out of it.
It’s like a game of dodgeball that no one wants to win but everyone wants to play.
Every intelligent adult knows what the second amendment really means - it doesn’t matter if everyone agrees to what the second amendment intended, everyone knows exactly what the second amendment means.
But instead, those who have the power to settle it leave it open to go either way... depending on who can get the most mileage out of it.
It’s like a game of dodgeball that no one wants to win but everyone wants to play.
Every intelligent adult knows what the second amendment really means -
Pretty much what it plainly says. It is interesting to note that for well over a century people pretty much took it at face value.
They talk today about how little law there is on the 2nd amendment, compared to other rights. And it's implied, if not outright stated that because of that. the issue is not settled.
To me, this is ignoring the obvious. The reason there is so little case law on the matter is that until the century just past, it was considered a settled issue.
Study actual history, and not the fiction taught as history, and you'll find gun control to be something created for political gain, which had no national traction until the 20th century.
The Big Lie really does work, given enough time and repetition.
those who have the power to settle it leave it open to go either way... depending on who can get the most mileage out of it.
It’s like a game of dodgeball that no one wants to win but everyone wants to play.
That effectively sums up the 2A debate in our nation right now. It's a political issue, for political points. We have won decent pro-2A victories over the past couple decades. AWB sunset, with everyone and their brother subsequently getting their AR15, along with very friendly CCW laws as of late, has done a fair amount for our cause.
The anti's have victories too, at the state level. But in the end you're right. No one wants a significant shift on the national scene. Both sides like to drum it up for campaign donations.