• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.

    THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.

    Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.

    It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is arguing in favor of the national government having the ability to mobilize forces. At the time, there was no standing army

      Again, I mentioned it being relevant today. The US government neither wants nor needs your help

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The government isn’t who would be the one asking for my help. How are you not getting this… foreign and domestic… tyrants exist. How are you people this dense.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Great so the police and national guard fulfill that function. We can safely ban private ownership now since the need they expressed is fulfilled.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The police do not fulfill this function…and did you really want the police to have that much power?

        The national guard is a standing army they warned against as well.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Again. Alexander Hamilton did not warn against standing Armies. He was defending the Constitution against Anti-Federalists who were worried that the Congressional power to raise an Army would lead to a dictatorship.

          Stop repeating what the NRA said and actually read what’s written. Then go look at the man’s biography.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Oh so even further right?

              This is one of the most famous bits of revisionist history from the gun lobby.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Oh so even further right?

              This is one of the most famous bits of revisionist history from the gun lobby.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                O so you have nothing?

                And yes I’m somehow a right wing supporter who is pro choice and wants single payer healthcare…you still haven’t provided anything that refutes what I have. So at this point I’ll assume you’re just a troll.