View Single Post
Old 09-05-2019, 11:21 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have agreed that some sort of professional army was needed, but for much of American history, the idea was that the standing army existed to provide a base of leadership and skill, and that in times of crisis, the bulk of an army would be filled with volunteers and militia.
We don't disagree about that. Yes, Article 1, reinforced by the 2nd, was to ensure that we could put a capable military into action when needed, and the government quickly came to understand a standing core military was needed which could organize and lead and "well-regulate" it. That's been a common arrangement throughout history. But there's nothing in that committee-compromise document, begging for amendation, about an individual right not related to those uses.

What the USA become in the 20th century where there was ALWAYS an enormous armed forces was absolutely not what they wanted, and was in fact what they feared.
The USA became the dominant power in the world then, both economically and militarily (they're intertwined), while strengthening its democracy both at home and abroad at the same time. I have never seen a reason to believe they would have feared that, although they would have worried about the cost and deplored the many cases in which we have acted from lower impulses.