If the Constitution said that it would be flawed, but luckily it doesn't say that. I'd be siding with Thomas Jefferson over the Constitution if it did. It ALLOWS for defense only when necessary. Look at what Thomas Jefferson said about the dangers of standing armies. How is a standing army compatible with the spirit of America? It isn't. Flag waving and eagles don't mean anything without the American philosophy and our way of life being respected and upheld. Here's Jefferson's words on the matter:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154


Article 1 Section 8 of that constitution states Congress will have the power:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

Are we following the Constitution and its original intent? Or are we blindly waving flags? Think about that, man.

I'm aware of that, yes, yes, that's what I mean. When I said, "And with a militia, not an army" I needed to have added there "...except in the last resort." The whole thrust of what Jefferson and many of the founders were saying, was that standing armies are dangerous and should be used ONLY as a last resort. They believed this so much, that the Constitution placed strict limits on any army raised (two years) but placed no such limits on the Militia, which were in the service of the several states, and of the People.

So now that we are totally clear, note that in that section (8) of that Article (1) it states BOTH, and how each is to be used. We have to make a distinction between the two then, and respect the limits of each, because the founders made a distinction between the two, and provided for limits to the use of each.

An army was supposed to be a last resort, there is no getting around that. So much so that, IF raised, it can only be funded for two years. Now answer: How long has the United States Army been funded? How much longer than two years? Is it not illegal then?

Here is the section in question with both the Militia and army mentioned just a few lines from each other. Congress shall have power...:

"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..."

Now, again. I see what you are saying. Yes, I knopw it says "army", that's not the issue. The issue is, how can we with a straight face claim today, as Americans, and as patriots, to be following this formula? I respect that you love this country, I do not for one second dount your patriotism, I'm just asking the question here. To follow the Constitution and to use strict construction when interpreting it seems a very conservative thing to do.

Absolutely we can bury this issue in peace!

I disagree slightly with the budget interpretation coinciding intentionally with terms of the representatives, and also that an army could be realistically kept without funding. I would presume the funding language was placed there so as to be THE most strong prohibition against a standing army they could offer. No funding to me equals no army. But it's okay that we differ there.

We seem to agree on point #2, and you are right to bring up the National Guard. If ANY case could be made that there was a continuation of the constitutional useage of the term "the Militia", it is to be found in the National Guard. Certainly not in the Army or Marines. So excellent point. I also think the navy is legal, but I am very disappointed over how it is used, but that has nothing to do with our discussion here.

I also agree with your last point about gun bans. But I do think that the way we KEEP our guns is to respect the constitutional boundaries placed on military power and use: The Militia (the civilian "army") had few, but the national army had very strict requirements to be used. The thrust of my argument I guess is that the people seem to have lost their gun rights in proportion to the defense of the country becoming national rather than state, and standing (professional) rather than CALLABLE (volunteer. I know we say today we have a "volunteer" army, but I'm defining this slightly differently here).

Essentially what I am saying is, historically, when the military power rests more heavily with the PEOPLE, so does the right to keep and bear arms rest with the individual. So maybe therein is a better point of agreement, and maybe the rest is just a matter of "how much" we feel this power can safely be delegated to the national government without the loss of the former.