Did our founders intend to have a militia, instead of a permanent military?
February 19th, 2010 by eranio
I can’t get over the feeling, that the reason, we are the only western nation, to allow guns, as described in the constitution, is, because our founders wanted us private citizens to be armed as militia for defense. They didn’t wanted a military, because they knew, it would be abused. Care to add your thoughts?
Posted in military guns
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
It was a very controversial issue when our country was founded. Under the Articles of the Confederation there was no standing army. Many states were afraid to ratify the Constitution because they thought a standing army would give the federal govt. too much power, which is the main reason the 2nd Amendment was added. The compromise was that the fed. govt. -would- have a standing army but it would be controlled by civilians and also the states could keep their militias.
People saw in those days that countries with large standing armies were most often the aggressors and imperialists. In the two centuries since then this is still true. Countries without standing armies have not aggressed against their neighbors.
Since WWII the US has been on a continuous war footing, and has misbehaved all over the world, meddling in other countries’ politics, choosing their leaders for them, and equipping and training those leaders to control their own populations. We call this ‘exporting democracy’. We now spend as more on weapons and military as the rest of the world combined, and many politicians, for their own purposes, say that this isn’t enough! We are also the biggest supplier of arms around the world.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The founders also wanted an agrarian society where everyone owned plantations that were harvested by blacks. Instead we have a society where everybody works as merchants pedaling junk made by slaves in communist china.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Well, it is the part of the second amendment that gun rights activists leave out:
"to preserve a well guarded militia…"
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Interesting. Yes, they weren’t looking for a standing military.
Reading the Federalist papers and other writings from Jefferson and other leading politicians of the day made that pretty clear.
I’m proud of the men and women who serve, but I’d rather have a well-trained force ready at call to defend our country than someone such as myself, who lacks the training, suddenly being called on to fight other forces. God help us all if that ever happens.
Thanks again to the men and women who do serve in our military with great honor. We’re proud of you guys and gals.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
that is ridiculous. There wouldnt have been an "America" for very long without a military and the founding fathers would have know this simple thing.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Yes they did. They were actually afriad to have a standing military. They thought that the military would ignore the constitution and take over the country.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The founding fathers definitely intended for there to be no federal army (and nearly no federal government at all), but that proved to be unworkable and left the US vulnerable to larger countries, so the constitution was gradually amended to allow for this (all done in accordance with constitutional law enacted by the founding fathers for just these kinds of things). There are no more militias except the National Guard, which has their own armory so people don’t have to show up with their own weapons anymore, so for me the argument that the second amendment is still valid or necessary is pretty thin. Plus, let’s let the States "well regulate" the militias and gun ownership as stated in the amendment itself.
Conservatives think nobody can regulate the gun industry, which is exactly the opposite of what the 2nd amendment says!
PS: We are not the only Western nation to allow guns, just the only one to have a debate about properly regulating them.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
are founders could for see the further that we live in now so this Question real should not be asked..
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
What is the difference between a militia and a military? I would think the only difference would be organization: a military would be an organized militia. Given the choice between a disparate group of civilians constituting a militia, or an all volunteer professional military, I’d prefer a professional military defending my country.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Yes. They didn’t want a standing army for the reasons stated. And the US didn’t have one till after WW2. After WW1, all the boys went home and the Army was down to just a few thousand troops.
They also did not want to have political parties. Or income taxes. Or large bureaucracies. Or government regulation of private commerce.
Look at politics today, the label closest to the founding fathers would be "Libertarian" like Ron Paul.
Vlad.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Are you saying we are abusing our military? I wish you could ask George Washington’s troops if they were a militia or a regular army. I think you would have gotten shot. He formed the first regular army, so why would you say our founding fathers didn’t want one?
They also wanted the citizens to be well armed militia. Yes we have the national guard but it’s not the same as 500,000 people with deer rifles sniping people from 350 yards away. If you search hard enough you’ll find out thats why Japan never landed on the west coast in WWII.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The founding fathers specified in the constitution that they would keep a standing navy and would provide means to raise an army as necessary.
___________________________________________
Section 8 of the constitution contains these items:
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;
___________________________________________
In the days of the founding fathers, an army consisted of nothing more than armed men. Whereas, a navy consisted of sailors and ships. You could call upon an armed population to defend the country on fairly short notice back in those days, but a navy was quite different, it had to be maintained.
One quote that I love is, "Free men don’t have to ask permission to own firearms." Another is, "Armed populations are called citizens, unarmed populations are called subjects."
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
They wanted a SMALL military that could be supplemented in times of need by a militia. Today 2/3 ‘s of our Army is made up of this militia.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Those same founding fathers created the US Army ,US Navy and US Marine Corps so I would just venture a guess that they did want a permanent military
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
It was easy then to have everyone with basically the same type of rifle. The locals already had the same types of weapons the major European armies had. There was no need to make more rifles the locals already had. It was also cheaper to use posses that hire a bunch of cops. During that time a native American could shoot 30 arrows by the time a guy with a rifle could shoot once. There were European archers that were more accurate than the best rifleman. Things have drastically changed since then.
In a sense, the U.S. depends on this artificial military. One of the key points is the need to be able to go on the offensive and be on the defensive on the same time. With this local military, the U.S. can expose more of the real military in an offensive position because the government can rely on the locals to prevent a counter strike. That’s one of the reasons Japan never tried to invade the U.S. even they invaded the Soviet Union and China which both had larger populations.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Good question.
Memories of the English Civil War, (Charles I and Cromwell) and also of the later ‘revolution’ that imported William III to the British throne might have informed their views. The founders would have feared a standing army controlled by a monarch or parliament.
The British solution was a monarchy with a large navy but a small professional army whose pay and existence depended upon parliamentary vote. The USA solution was a republic whose citizens had the right to bear arms in case of oppression by a foreign power, or by their own government if it grew too rich as the nation’s prosperity increased.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The poor qualities of militias was exposed during the war of 1812. The need for a well trained, professional Army has gathered momentum with each additional conflict or war. Through the principal of Manifest Destiny exposing the threats and weaknesses of the move westward it was even more imperative to have a standing military. This is one of the few lessons that we have actually learned from. The size of the military shouldn’t ebb and flow with each conflict or we would continue to pay the consequences like we did with Task Force Smith at the beginning of the Korean War.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
The founding fathers had good cause for that, and we are seeing the results today. The modern US Army is basically a mercenary army used for the purpose of extending obscure foreign policy to countries that we have no business dealing with. In other words, today’s soldiers are far from ‘defending their country" nations like switzerland use a citizen militia instead of a standing army and they have a first rate defense force. The Iraq debacle has pointed out the extreme drawbacks of our modern mercenary force
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Yes, it was the intent of the founding fathers that each state have its own militia to foster the defense if the individual states and in time of crisis they would form together in the joint defense of the nation. There however provisions made to permit a small standing Army and Naval forces realizing that as the nation evolved so would its military.
This would become an issue that nearly caused the Union to lose the Civil War as the militia of the many states supporting the Union arrived in Washington, DC bearing absolutely no resemblance to one another. Regiments from the same state came uniformed differently and drilled differently as well. No wonder the Union had nothing but failures during its first 3 years of the war.
Congress passed the Dick Act of 1903 and the National Guard Act of 1913 which forced the conversion of the state militias into the National Guard we know today giving the dual mission of defending the Federal government in times of crisis and serving their home states as may be required.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:33 am
They wanted guns becuase they were afraid of the Indians.