Our Second Amendment: The Founders’ Intent

I'll concede that a small force should always be maintained.

And, considering the state of the world, that is what we have. Or considering what we had in the "peace" time of the 1950s. The Army was also small during the post civil war period and the 1920s and 30s. That latter deficit helped lead to WW-II. Notice I said *helped*. As a fraction of the total population, I'd have to check. ... There's a graph in this Article (pdf) that shows the fraction of the population in the military from 1790 to around 2002. We are at about 0.5% of the population. That's maybe twice that of the inter-war years (WWI to WWII) and about the level during the Mexican War. I'd argue that the inter war level was too low for safety. Today's world is at least as dangerous as that period, and we have large numbers of troops deployed to a combat theater.

Federalist 46 indicates that a large standing army would be about 1% of the population. We are half that level. And it's not exactly a time of peace. Not that we've increased that fraction much, if at all, since 911.

Also, things have changed since the 1780s. The population is much more productive, and thus able to sustain a higher fraction in the military.

Spending wise, for FY 2006 we were at around 3.1%, down from 3.4% in FY 05 (about 4.4% if you consider the war supplemental, which the Congress had not yet passed for this year) of GDP. The post WW-II low, approaching the level which existed prior to the US buildup for WW-II, was 2.9% during FY 2001, the last Clinton budget.

A lot of the increased spending is for activation of reserve forces, the closest we have to the militia of old. The rest of for bullets, boots, beans and other consumable material expended in the "non-peace" effort.

I don't think even George Washington would be overly concerned with the size of todays active duty military, all things considered.

But I believe this one to be correct and accurate:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Probably not. I spent a bit of time trying to run that one down in two different multi-volume collections of Jefferson's works. Sometimes a referance is given for it, but it appears to be a scrambled version of one of those works.

Here's one example:

Thomas Jefferson, (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, p. 334, 1950)

It's not there.

It's often combined with ""No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Which Jefferson did write as part of proposed Constituition for Virginia. It was followed by "within his own lands or tenements)", the () indicating he thought that might be optional or left out, the proposal did not pass, although I think a stronger version did.

Jefferson did write: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.

And

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -- Letter to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

A good source of Jefferson quotes on a number of subject is at the site of the school he founded, The University of Virginia

In particular On Militia and Military matters and The Right to (Keep and) Bear Arms

There are numerous references in the Federalist Papers and in Madison's Notes where standing armies were not to be maintained during times of peace.

That's why they added the 2 year funding restriction. Doesn't mean they didn't think we needed at least a small core to build a real Army around. That's almost what we have, but we haven't used it as core, and built a large army around it, but rather an expeditionary Army in itself.

But the Army, and the rest of the military, is firmly under civilian control, and that was one of the main, if not the main, objections to a standing Army. An Army free of legislative control and barely in executive control. We aren't even close to that.

The two year funding restriction ties in with the requirement that all tax bills originate in the House, the members of which must stand for election every two years. And of course the House must at least concur with, when it doesn't originate, all spending bills as well.

I'm fully aware of everything that you're saying.
All very educational, though I already now it (I have no idea why you think I need to be educated on the subject!)
What you're not saying in your rambling quasi dissertation, which I am, is that in times of peace the army is supposed to be disbanded. America is not supposed to have a standing army, two year funding requirements or not.
Do you agree that we aren't supposed to have a standing army in times of peace? It's a simple question not requiring more than a one word answer.

BTW, this...a large standing army would be about 1% of the population. We are half that level.
...is disingenuous at best. Think "force multiplier"!

I don't think even George Washington would be overly concerned with the size of todays active duty military, all things considered.
Dancing around my original point...America is not supposed to have a standing army in times of peace.

...the fraction of the population in the military from 1790 to around 2002. We are at about 0.5% of the population.
You're active duty? (thus the "we")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.