Latest Breaking News

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

29. There was a national security angle

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:07 PM

Jan 2013

Washington and a few others didn't want a standing federal army. The theory of the time was that monarchs with standing armies would always decide to use those armies to conquer.

So the idea was to deny the federal government an army, so that the feds would be dependent on the states for defense in the hopes that the feds would not be able to go on offense.

The founders had multiple reasons to do damn near everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gabrielle Giffords’ Husband Smacks Down Wayne LaPierre [View all] Purveyor Jan 2013 OP

You can be heard on this!!! Today only!!! Scuba Jan 2013 #1

Thanks - let' get that one kicked up for visibility. freshwest Jan 2013 #7

And don't forget the TOLL FREE numbers to Capitol Hill: calimary Jan 2013 #30

There is a huge problem with having guns available only to people with no history of mental health JDPriestly Jan 2013 #2

Too much credit jinx1 Jan 2013 #5

Sure, I could easily fail a drug test. DaveJ Jan 2013 #10

probably depends on how 'psychiatric problems' is defined. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #13

Do you think someone who has been diagnosed PADemD Jan 2013 #21

Problem is that there are false diagnoses as there are with all illnesses. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #44

I work with older teenagers & I can easily tell you wordpix Jan 2013 #47

That would make sense except that if keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right, JDPriestly Jan 2013 #50

Also, the decision about what conditions are a mental illness is political and somewhat arbitrary Blandocyte Jan 2013 #22

Yes. The diagnosis of just one doctor who might have some ulterior motive or have a problem JDPriestly Jan 2013 #43

oh geesh, you've got a lotta straw men in that argument wordpix Jan 2013 #48

But what you and I would say is not the question. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #49

..... merrily Jan 2013 #53

Being denied a gun > Being shot and killed by someone with mental issues Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2013 #54

A seven day waiting period would be fair Kolesar Jan 2013 #23

To your first two points... yorokmok Jan 2013 #26

Your arguments might persuade me, but I'm not sure they would persuade a majority of Supreme JDPriestly Jan 2013 #42

The restrictions are not on people who have ever sought mental heath care jeff47 Jan 2013 #27

If it only affects people who have been committed it would still miss a lot of people and affect JDPriestly Jan 2013 #41

Who, exactly, should it not affect? jeff47 Jan 2013 #45

When you deny a person a fundamental right, you have to do it very carefully. JDPriestly Jan 2013 #51

Which is why I'm only supporting a ban on those declared legally insane jeff47 Jan 2013 #58

I've made the same argument regarding a number of your points and on top of those.... tpsbmam Jan 2013 #59

The freaking NRA has gone off the tracks Berlum Jan 2013 #3

What boggles my mind Plucketeer Jan 2013 #4

Almost every state, including non-slaveholding states had the same provision in their state constitu AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #9

Here's what I was referring to.... Plucketeer Jan 2013 #55

Yes, that's the piece I was thinking of. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #56

My understanding is jonthebru Jan 2013 #14

Pretty close to it azureblue Jan 2013 #17

Yep... IthinkThereforeIAM Jan 2013 #36

A general could use his standing army to take over Congress & the Executive department Kolesar Jan 2013 #24

"raise and Army," "maintain a Navy" OldRedneck Jan 2013 #28

There was a national security angle jeff47 Jan 2013 #29

ANY ATTEMPT IS BETTER THAN NONE ROBROX Jan 2013 #6

Could have? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #8

K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Jan 2013 #11

. libodem Jan 2013 #12

He is right about the background checks hack89 Jan 2013 #15

It's a start Crepuscular Jan 2013 #16

And meanwhile,. at the very same time of these hearings rivegauche Jan 2013 #18

K & R LibGranny Jan 2013 #19

C'mon Democrats! kentuck Jan 2013 #20

Concept v. Reality maryland native Jan 2013 #25

He was a criminal because of his drug use. BudHardener Jan 2013 #31

How about treating a gun license like the drivers license? EC Jan 2013 #32

It's all about the money lotsofsnowplease Jan 2013 #33

And, if there's any bloke who deserves a smackdown... Ian Iam Jan 2013 #34

more people need to stand up to these NRA cowards Skittles Jan 2013 #35

Good for him. another_liberal Jan 2013 #37

Now is the time for the sane ones of us to take a stand..... llmart Jan 2013 #38

The Astronaut has more intelligence and credibility rightsideout Jan 2013 #39

You Know The NRA By Their "Enemies" & Their Directors... triplepoint Jan 2013 #40

thanks for posting LittleGirl Jan 2013 #46

Hiking - Scary Democratic Principle Jan 2013 #52

like Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, and the rest of the Powell Memo instrumentalities, MisterP Jan 2013 #57

Big Business Mkap Jan 2013 #60

I have yet to hear Aerows Jan 2013 #61

Why should the lobbiest group for gun & ammo makers (NRA) be tax deferred? And with 8% approving of drynberg Feb 2013 #62