Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every<quoted text>Really? So there was no slavery in the US in 1791? We're you afraid to research the origins of the law o did you just decide to be woefully ignorant? It makes no difference, Lord Batman, you're still re-writing history.
Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the
sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States
Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered
sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental
abuse was the armed population.
To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat
to liberty, Madison replied:
To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million
of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing
their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides
the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every
other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are
attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
form can admit of.
Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view.
Hamilton suggested that
if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their
constituents, the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means
to do so.
In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the
republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed
Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they
disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national
government to control the danger of oppression.
Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of
rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.
argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was
restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.
There was no need to
provide exceptions to powers not granted.
Further, the Federalists argued that providing
exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not
expressly stated had been granted.
Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right
to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to
preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the
measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim
and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.
You really are an idiot, sorry I don't like saying that.
But people like you have so got to go, there's no place in America for you. There is no doubt what it means, except for people like you who do not understand no.