Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

Re:Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty... by rayiner on Sunday September 18, 2022 @10:31PM (#32893619)

The framers didn’t anticipate armies becoming permanent institutions, which is why we have a “no standing army” requirement that we just kind of ignore. But even that only makes the second amendment clearer: if you don’t have a standing army, who has the guns? The answer is militias comprised of heavily armed citizenry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty... by lupire on Monday September 19, 2022 @07:59PM (#32905813)

You seem to be ignoring the concept of an armory (the local Armory food hall used to hold weapons) which does not require individual ownership of the heavy arms, not a standing army.

Also there is no "no sanding Army" requirement. There is only a requirement that the army can only be funded for 2 years ahead, presumably to require ongoing consent from Legislature, to prevent a Chancellor Hitler-type situation or a President becoming King by getting a huge multi year funding and then turning against the future Legislature and the country.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty... by cycomanic on Monday September 19, 2022 @02:43AM (#32895055)

I am pretty certain that the large military powers at the time (England, France certainly Prussia) had standing armies already. So I would be highly surprised that the founders did not anticipate armies as a permanent institution. That would be a pretty big blind spot, considering they already existed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty... by lupire on Monday September 19, 2022 @08:06PM (#32905876)

They Constitution (and the framers) opposed the President having a standing army. It supported the country having one with biannual renewal of consent from Legislature for funding.

And the War of 1812 taught President Madison the danger of being under militarized and over-reliant on militias.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty... by shadowgovt on Monday September 19, 2022 @05:45PM (#32904478)

In some ways, the Founders were delightfully naive. Kings also already existed, and they'd just thrown off control of one.

Many Founders believed a standing army to be an inherently corrupting force (if you have a warrior class, sooner or later they will make you go to war) and thought America would be better without one. Whether or not that could have been true in the abstract became irrelevant because the need to perpetually defend territory meant that there was never an opportunity to disband the Continental Army.

[ Parent | on HN ]