#standing army

[truesnapplefacts]

[k-star-holic]

'I' Yu Nam-gyu's daughter Yu-rin, was eliminated with three consecutive victories in the national college.

[mtg-cards-hourly]

Standing Army

They're the chair-men of the bored.

Artist: Randy Gallegos TCG Player Link Scryfall Link EDHREC Link

[alchemisoul]

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

- James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).

[milfitinstitute]

Costa Rica: What Army?

Costa Rica: What Army?

““Democracy and freedom only exist when the armed forces want them to,” he [Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil] said in a speech in March at a military ceremony.

This will be news to Costa Rica. Its decision to abolish its army in 1948 is widely regarded as having helped it stay free.” (The Economist, 2019, p.18).

Coast Rica has used the savings from defence spending to improve education,…

View On WordPress

[milfitinstitute]

Jealousies of a Standing Army...

Jealousies of a Standing Army…

“The jealousies of a standing army, and the evils to be approached from one are remote, and in my judgement, situated and circumstanced as we are, not at all to be dreaded.”

George Washington (1732 to 1799)

General George Washington, also called Father of His Country, was an American general and commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-1783) and…

View On WordPress

[liberty1776]

Why We Can’t Ignore the Militia Clause - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The Second Amendment as a Guard Against a Standing Army

While many defenders of private gun ownership recognize that the Second Amendment was written to provide some sort of counterbalance against the coercive power of the state, this argument is often left far too vague to reflect an accurate view of this historical context surrounding the Amendment.

After all, it is frequently pointed out that private ownership of shotguns and semi-automatic rifles could offer only very limited resistance to the extremely well-equipped and well-armed United States military.

It is often, therefore, just assumed that the writers of the Second Amendment were naïve and incapable of seeing the vast asymmetries that would develop between military weaponry and the sort of weaponry the average person was likely to use.

Was the plan really to just have unorganized amateurs grab their rifles and repel the invasion of a well-trained military force?1

The answer is no, and we know this by looking at the wording and reasoning behind the Second Amendment. The text, of course, reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Gun-rights advocates often fixate on the second half of the amendment, claiming that the phrase about a militia is just something that provides a reasoning for the second phrase. Many opponents of gun control even suggest that the only phrase here of key importance is “shall not be infringed.”

Fearful that a large federal military could be used to destroy the freedoms of the states themselves, Anti-Federalists and other Americans fearful of centralized power in the US government designed the Second Amendment accordingly. It was designed to guarantee that the states would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power, and as a means of keeping a defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government.

No principle of government was more widely understood or more completely accepted by the generation of Americans that established the United States than the danger of a standing army in peacetime. Because a standing army represented the ultimate in uncontrolled and controllable power, any nation that maintained permanent forces surely risked the overthrow of legitimate government and the introduction of tyranny and despotism.

We can see this plainly in the speeches and writings of the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, but we also see it in the more moderate attendees of the constitutional convention as well, such as George Mason, who “When once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty.”

Sentiments like Mason’s did not represent the views of oddball outliers. Rather, Kohn notes, these were mainstream views of the danger of an unimpeded federal military establishment.

But how to combat the power of a federal standing army?

On this, the Americans did not need to re-invent the wheel. After all, the idea of locally-controlled military forces answerable to civil officials was put into place in seventeenth-century England. The English militias had been created out of fear of a large standing army directly answerable to the king.

[a-force-superior]

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.

Noah Webster, 1787