Standing Armies and the Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Standing Armies and the Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I am not getting personal. My whole post addressed the topic you posted about. Nova, read the constitution. Congress can fund anything they want to, ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 81

Thread: Standing Armies and the Second Amendment

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    I am not getting personal. My whole post addressed the topic you posted about.

    Nova, read the constitution. Congress can fund anything they want to, and as long as the president signs the bills, the money is then allowed to be spent.

    Tell us where you think they are not allowed to fund the military.
    but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    This just says they can't fund it for longer than two years out. Do you not understand that aspect?
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Look: I see the merits of having a standing army, but I also see the detractors. It means the Commander-in-Chief has a military force at his beck-and-call at all times. With Obama as president, I really don't like that idea.

    Everyone keeps talking about this necessity of having a standing army, but I don't see it. The real enemy I'm afraid of is sitting in the Oval Office, and he gives orders to the military.

    Why should I fear him less than the enemies abroad who our standing army is supposed to defend us from? Who is more capable of destroying my rights? Osama or Obama?

    I remain far more concerned about this government than I am about Al Qaeda crashing planes into the WTC. If they mess around too much, we have nukes on the table. How do we stop the guy who is controlling those nukes? The military?
    So your ok with it as long as some people are not in the Oval office. Talk about wanting a living document of a Constitution. Your arguing against your own argument.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #18
    Member Array Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Nova, read the constitution. Congress can fund anything they want to, and as long as the president signs the bills, the money is then allowed to be spent.
    That's not true. Congress has enumerated powers. This means that Congress may only spend money on the things that the Constitution says it can. The Constitution states that Congress may only fund a declared war for 2 years. Congress has not declared war since WWII.

    Now, what Congress does in the real world is not indicative of what it is allowed to do. We live under a tyranny, for all intents and purposes. Our regulators tell us what they will do and don't care what we think, what the Constitution says, etc.
    Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

  5. #19
    Member Array Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    So your ok with it as long as some people are not in the Oval office. Talk about wanting a living document of a Constitution. Your arguing against your own argument.
    Nah, it just means that Obama as president causes me to seriously reconsider the powers of the executive branch today. Both for Republicans and Democrats.

    The executive has too much power. Standing armies are just an example of that.
    Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    That's not true. Congress has enumerated powers. This means that Congress may only spend money on the things that the Constitution says it can. The Constitution states that Congress may only fund a declared war for 2 years. Congress has not declared war since WWII.

    Now, what Congress does in the real world is not indicative of what it is allowed to do. We live under a tyranny, for all intents and purposes. Our regulators tell us what they will do and don't care what we think, what the Constitution says, etc.
    Really, it seems they have very broad powers as long as the president will sign the bill and make it law.

    Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

    Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

    Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
    Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

    To establish post offices and post roads;

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

    To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

    To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;

    To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

    To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #21
    Member Array Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Really, it seems they have very broad powers as long as the president will sign the bill and make it law.
    Like I said...

    Among Congress' enumerated powers:

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    This is designed to limit the amount of time an army may be called. This is clear because the President's powers are limited thusly:

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
    Clearly, there are times envisioned by the writers of the Constitution that the military will not be called into actual Service.

    Judging the numerous quotes I provided, it is clear that the Founders did not envision a permanent standing military. That is as it should be. They made it clear repeatedly that they did not want a standing army to be used by tyrants to eliminate our rights, most important of which is the 2nd amendment.
    Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

  8. #22
    Member Array MSGTTBAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    PENSACOLA, FL
    Posts
    206
    2 points:
    1. Congress must provide and maintain a Navy.
    2. Congress may raise and support Armies with the limitation that financing be restricted to a 2 year period.

    Congress has, since WWI, reapproved appropriations for the US Army every 2 years as part of the budget process. Before that time, there may have been Constitutional questions. Currently, our standing Army is legal.

    There has never been any doubt of the Constitutional legality of the US Navy.
    Life is too short to be serious!

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Like I said...

    Clearly, there are times envisioned by the writers of the Constitution that the military will not be called into actual Service.

    Judging the numerous quotes I provided, it is clear that the Founders did not envision a permanent standing military. That is as it should be. They made it clear repeatedly that they did not want a standing army to be used by tyrants to eliminate our rights, most important of which is the 2nd amendment.
    Clearly you are grasping at straws, since I don't believe that you can provide any evidence that the standing army has done anything to limit your rights, including the 2A. At no time that I am aware of has anyone but congress and the president themselves limited any rights of the American Citizen. No army was needed for what they have done to this country.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #24
    Member Array Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by MSGTTBAR View Post
    2 points:
    1. Congress must provide and maintain a Navy.
    2. Congress may raise and support Armies with the limitation that financing be restricted to a 2 year period.

    Congress has, since WWI, reapproved appropriations for the US Army every 2 years as part of the budget process. Before that time, there may have been Constitutional questions. Currently, our standing Army is legal.

    There has never been any doubt of the Constitutional legality of the US Navy.
    2. Congress may raise and support Armies with the limitation that financing be restricted to a 2 year period.

    Congress must first declare war. That is why it is ordered this way:

    To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

    To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

    To provide and maintain a navy;
    The reason we know that Congress cannot perpetually fund a military force is listed in the President's powers, as well as numberous other sources from the Founding Fathers which I have already listed.

    Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
    "When called into the actual service of the United States" modifies everything that came before it - "and the militia of the several states" is cordoned off with commas on either side, indicating it is an addition to a series.

    Militias were to be the regular opposition to a standing army. If militias were strong, then the standing army could not conquer the country.

    Today, militias are a joke and the standing army has the power to dominate the world, much less the USA.

    Standing armies were supposed to disband from time to time. It's clear that the Constitution provides for that by offering limits on the length of time that Congress could fund a standing army - also by saying "when called into actual service."

    This could all be rectified by declaring war. Thing is: the American people and Congress don't have the guts to declare war.
    Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

  11. #25
    Member Array Nova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Clearly you are grasping at straws, since I don't believe that you can provide any evidence that the standing army has done anything to limit your rights, including the 2A. At no time that I am aware of has anyone but congress and the president themselves limited any rights of the American Citizen. No army was needed for what they have done to this country.
    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded."
    Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    In 1800, you could ask farmer John to show up with his musket, food, and sufficient ball and powder, and expect him to show up with a degree of proficiency. Today, Johnny has never seen a rifle, and wouldn't know what to do with one.

    In 1800 a rifleman need a rifle, bayonet, ball and powder. Today, he needs rifle, ammo, grenades, anti-armor weapons, armor, night vision, laser aiming device, chemical protective equipment, and often secure multichannel communication and navigation equipment (which involves much more than just push to talk).

    Now if you tell Daddy Warcrimes to show up with his rifle, I'd move out and kill commies. If you told me 5 years ago to get into a Bradley, upload 25mm.... I'd move out and kill commies. Tell me today to upload 25.... I might have to take a look at the manual first. Tell me load 120 in an Abrams... I'll look at you like a deer in headlights.

    Technology allows for greater efficiency, but requires greater specialization. A militia while it may be able to achieve the same results as a professional army, would only be able to do so at an elevated human cost.

    As far as the legality, it reads to me like congress has the power to raise an army, and fund it for two years at a time. The idea that after 2 years is up the army would dissolve fails the sense test considering the revolution took 8 years. It is not written so as to be conditional to declared war.

    The army in it's current state poses little threat to individual liberty (especially compared to other government agencies). Over the years the military has played less and less of a role in the day to day lives of the people. We have put into place safeguards against abuse (divided control between branches, posse comitatus).

    The threat against 2A is one of perception. The proficiency of the army to the minds of many precludes the need for the militia. In the minds of others, the 2A is only in place to provide for a militia. Taken these two views as fact, with a proficient army, there is no need for the 2A.

    Most of us of course know this to be bull, but the attitude persists.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

  13. #27
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    "By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline."

    -Thomas Jefferson

    Jefferson threw in an abolishment of "standing armies" with all of the other rights. And yet, 2nd amendment supporters seem to strongly support standing armies.

    However, standing armies represent one of the biggest threats to your rights. You have the right to bear arms, but there is no Constitutional provision for the government to maintain a standing army. Consequently, why does the US government maintain standing armies, and what threat does this pose to your 2nd amendment rights, if any?
    So...

    Exactly what exactly is the point of this thread? Are you proposing the disbanding of the Armed Forces?

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded."
    Wasn't this during a declared war? You already admit that congress has the power to declare war, which they did and this took place during that time. As President, FDR was well within his power to do so, or are you saying he wasn't.

    There must be some other straw for you to grab. If your advocating disbanding the standing army, you need to find some reason for doing it during peace time, and find some reason for that argument. Not arguing against things that were done during a declared war by the army which you agree is constitutional.

    The executive order which you referenced was within the first 2 years after congress declared war. Please refer to your previous post with those areas in bold.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    I'm with JD: What's the OP's point?

    We need a standing army (including Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). We have a standing army. It's there to protect our freedom, not to usurp it. I'm proud to have spent quite a few years as part of it.

    Our lack of a strong professional military cost us dearly in previous wars. Amateurs have almost always faired poorly vs. professionals. This is especially true in a modern conflict where technology plays such a crucial role. We cannot afford to indulge the "no standing armies" fantasy.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,713
    This is by far the weakest Constitutional argument I have read in a long, long time. It is far worse than the antis who grasp at the preamble of the 2A as if it can alter (or, in fact, negate) the body of the amendment. There is NO link between Congresses power to declare war, and their legal authority to fund a standing army. They are completely separate powers. By your logic, every power given to Congress after their power to declare war applies ONLY during a declared war. This is ludicrous, as even you can surely see, considering that this would mean that Congress couldn't make the laws "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the powers that the Constitution had just spent so much time allotting to them.

    It's fine that you fear the Government, and, as the military could conceivably be the teeth of tyranny, to fear that as well. Unfortunately for you, your fear doesn't alter the clear and indisputable meaning of the Constitution...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. Good: 14,000,000 firearms sold in US in 2009, more than 21 of the worlds armies
    By Bfunk in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: January 19th, 2010, 03:41 PM
  3. WOW, H&R Block standing up for us
    By kentuckycarry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 26th, 2009, 04:16 PM
  4. What is a standing army?
    By paramedic70002 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 02:07 PM
  5. Standing Firm in PA. !
    By AKsrule in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 27th, 2007, 03:57 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment limiting a standing army
,
2nd amendment, was there a standing army?
,
2nd ammendment standing army
,
bill amendments about stading army
,
did the 2nd ammendment call for the disbandment of a standing military
,
does the second amendment standing armies
,
standimg army biggest threat
,
standing armies 2nd amendment
,
standing army second ammendment
,
the army is unconstitutional two years
,
the biggest threat is not standing armies
,

why is the second amendment important with standing army

Click on a term to search for related topics.