(02-25-2022, 08:40 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(02-24-2022, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: Common criminals, pirates, and natives.  There are no pirates anymore and the remaining natives are peaceful, but we still have criminals to worry about.

I've tried to be clear what I'm arguing in favor of.  What are you arguing in favor of? Should Elon Musk be allowed to own and operate a personal fleet of A-10s? That's what it sounds like to me.

You are so squirmy. 

You have admitted the founders wanted to use militias for defense of the state against foreign aggressors, but when pressed, you pivot and say they are supposed to only use basic firearms for that defense (even though it defeats the purpose). You have admitted that the founders didn't want standing armies because their top priority was freedom for the people, but when pressed, you pivot and say that the founders wouldn't want people taking up arms against an oppressive state (even though it defeats the purpose). Like always, you start with your argument and build around it instead of following the facts.

The militias were to be the first line of defense.  In case of attack by a full foreign army or navy, the militia would resist initially, but a standing army would be called up before things got too far. 
This is academic in any case.  The legal status of the less than 1000 paid professional soldiers during the first two years of Washington's first term as President was ambiguous, but Congress has formally authorized a professional standing army continuously since 1791.
Do you realize that Bill Gates could buy a couple of fully loaded Ohio Class submarines, along with crews, and have tens of billions of dollars to spare? Should he be allowed to do this if he wants to?

---