E-Mail 'Preparedness Notes for Wednesday — June 12, 2019' To A Friend

11 Comments

1. Re. The Berlin Wall.
   Trump’s Wall could do the same. If he (or in reality his handlers) really wanted to defend our borders they could easily do it.

   But I for one don’t want a wall around me or a standing army. Can you imagine our Founders agreeing to either? Dare to suggest the use of the militia and bounties and you will be mocked. Every solution must be a government solution. That’s testimony to how far Americans have fallen from their roots.

   1. AFAIK the Founders did agree to a Standing army and Navy, they put that into law, also the Duty of every man to own a Long firearm of a specified Military caliber

2. ThoDan, read the debates about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and two facts are crystal clear. Our Founders feared a standing army — an army made up of professional, full-time soldiers. They just spent almost two decades being persecuted by one and waging war against it. They realized that those in charge of a standing army could order it to attack the citizens themselves. This concern is just as relevant today.

   Secondly, they strongly believed in a citizen militia to defend against invasion. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on this principle. Preventing the United States from starting a professional army, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. Today’s banter about the 2nd Amendment is worse than a distraction, it is destructive disinformation.

   Incidentally, The United States STILL has a militia.
   Militia is defined in US Code: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

   1. AFAIK

      They feared one, but in 1784 the congress created one, the Colonial militia wasn´t able zo stand up to the british Regulars, and the Colonial army lost many of their Semi-Regulars to short Terms of Service

      These so called militia is not worth anything against a Minimum professional Military, except the cost of time and supplies needed to crush them, the most danger from them is Maybe making their enemies sloppy

      1. ThoDan, yes and the sole purpose of the army they created was to fight a specific war for the duration of that war. I ask you, ‘Upon winning the war did they remain standing or go home?’ I’m sorry but I can’t help you any further on our Founders’ definition of a ‘standing army’.

         My closing thought on this thread: anyone believing that “so called militia is not worth anything against a Minimum professional Military” is a failure to understand why the mightiest military in the world has not won a war in 74 years.

         1. Sorry, i didn´t meant the Colonial army but the Standing US Troops the goverment and congress created after the revolution.

3. Excuse me sir, but I think you underestimate our militia.

   1. Excuse me, but men who aren´t trained, drilled, organized aren´t a militia.

4. Surprise you are all right- but you have to tie everything together. The Federalist and Anti-federalist both feared a standing army this is correct. But the Constitution in Article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to raise and Army but the funding bill can only last 2 years. The safeguard here was that the President could not use a standing army if Congress didn’t approve one. And added safeguard on top of this was the second Amendment. Remember many of our founders viewed government as a necessary evil and the Constitution and Bill of Rights was all about setting up road blocks to make it difficult as possible for our government to run amok. Getting involved in foreign entanglements has really watered down the fear of the standing army plus the technological advance of push button warfare make it so we do need a standing force since a true total war would be fought won or lost in a few hours.

   The problem with the militia back then is the same problem we have with the militia today – it is “unregulated”. Regulated back in the late 1700’s meant drilled or as we would say today trained. The states have shirked their duty to regulate (train) the militia. Then the Progressives came out with the National Guard concept and the state militia went pretty much away.

   But think about what the Montanaguy wrote- The mightiest army can’t fight and “defeat” (as we have come to define “defeat”) A guerrilla army. But in no one else can either. I remember reading Soldier of Fortune (SOF) when I was a teen and the Soviets were fighting the Afghans. The magazine was full of articles and the one that sticks in my mind was an article on the hodgepodge of weapons being used by the Afghans including a muzzleloader!! We might think that odd but I view the use of that muzzleloader much the same way I view the single shot .45 Liberator that where dropped behind the German line in places like France with a tag on it that basic said use this gun to shoot a German Soldier and take his gun and ammo.

   1. The British Army Needs to be legalized by parliament every year, if my understanding is correct.

      A Guerilla army is normally reasonably well trained and led, Needs normally foreign supply and local support

      The Vietkong was a highly disciplined and very well led force.

      Victory (not necessary total Victory) over a Guerilla army was possible, the British did it e.g. in Kenia and South Africa . The civil war in Greece is another

5. What a wonderful, lively discussion. Friendly, too. One of the many things I appreciate about all of you who contribute to SB.

   That, and I learn a great deal about the founding of our country.

   BTW, I certainly agree with Montana Guy about the recent record of our standing army.

   Carry on

Comments are closed.