Quote:
Originally Posted by Back Atcha
As it always has. However, in the absence of the military-industrial complex, they had other ways of achieving this through the creation of militias and, if needed, a draft. Respond away.
Again, I never said there should be no army. If you look closely at what I wrote, I said "LARGE STANDING ARMY". I'm starting to understand how it is that you get so easily confused.
|
Militias would no longer be a viable option.
You said the Framers were against a standing army, if that is so then they are against it regardless of size, what part don't you understand?
Yes, there is a magic number. There is a point at which you can defend the borders and interests abroad without posing a threat to the armed citizens. Don't ask me what that number is, I don't know, I'm not a general or military planner.
Too funny.
Apples and Oranges. Slaves didn't pose a threat to the nation, not even if they all rebelled at once. And yes, some of the framers absolutely had a problem with slavery, but reasoned that in order to maintain the union for the purposes of commerce and protection from England and Spain, it best not to rock the boat too much during the formation of our young republic. But provisions were made so that it would be possible to rectify that at some point in the future.
Not being able to vote poses a threat to democracy!
Not apples and oranges. We are talking about what the Framers thought and their intent. They didn't allow women to vote, they didn't allow some free white men to vote, and they allowed for slavery. The fact is that the world changed and if the Framers wrote the Constitution today they wouldn't have allowed for slavery. They would have also recognized the need for a standing army.
Look, you can't have it both ways, either the Constitution allows for a standing army or it doesn't (I guarantee it doesn't prohibit one). You can't say it allows for one that comes in just below your "magic number", that is having it both ways.