Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Gun Rights, the Militia, and Community Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/gun_rights_the_militia_and_community#31219 Post contents: Dirk, if the Founders were against standing armies in almost all circumstances, why did they enhance government authority in the transition from the Articles to the Constitution and allow Congress to fund a standing Army and Navy? This "libertarian" reading of the founding seems to ignore the important strains of increased government authority and classical republicanism at the local level in their rhetoric. (Incidentally, I mentioned a "standing military" above and addressed these points about tyranny throughout my piece.) I agree the Founders were wary of standing armies, but there are two important caveats to this. One, much of what a standing army did then was what police do today. An army focused chiefly on external defense is far less troublesome at home. Further, large, professionalized police forces likely would have the Founders too, but the kind of urbanization that has resulted since that time likely necessitates this development. In other words, we must face reality, recognize things changes, and try to achieve the same fundamental ends using mean adopted for changed circusmtances. Second, in the case of both police and a standing army, the right to keep and bear arms and a "well regulated" militia are the key to keeping them in check. No standing army of several hundred thousand men could do much in a nation of 300 million with a militia even 1% of that assembled against them. Sent at: 2008 12 02