gotta disagree with this... there really was not a Federal government at the time the Constitution was written, and even after it was finally ratified, it took time for the concept of a Federal government to evolve
also, there really were no federal armed forces at all at that time, the army that fought the British in the war of independence had disbanded, battles were primarily fought by coalitions of citizens militias - - it really wasn't until the War of 1812 that there was more of a push for a standing federal army.
gotta agree with this.
The only 'military' force we had in the early days of our independence was a whole lot of ordinary folks with their guns, who were fully invested in the continued independence of our country and its principles upholding personal liberties. A "mob" if you will, but a "mob" with the principles to establish one of the best governments the world has ever seen.
People who throughout the process of fighting for independence made the civil efforts to maintain their "colonial" or state governments staffed with their representatives, who then directed their war for independence, and people who throughout the whole process honored the concepts of respect for "their" government.
I agree with the need for an organized and well-managed military, and the provision for sufficient arms for that military to defend the nation. I disagree with wars against ideas, wars against religions, wars against chemical substances and wars against methods of making war, like "terror". I agree with protecting people in their freedom, in their states or nation, in their homes and on their highways and in their places of worship or work or entertainment. I disagree with "American" foreign policy where it looks like we're being the bully on the world street.
Our excursions away from being a principled nation go back in some respects many decades, and I could show some horrid examples of unprincipled campaigns our country has done, which are in fact horrendous, to practically our beginnings in relation to our wars against the native Americans, but even then we had elected government officials who had to look at some support base in the citizenry and hold enough respect for them they decided, cogently, to refrain from abusing at least those citizens who could vote them out of office. And for a large part, those citizens were principled people with some core values which maintained, at least for themselves, their right to run their government.
all we need, as a nation, is a government that still respects the rights of its citizens enough, that those citizens are secure in their homes, on their streets, and in their peaceable daily affairs, that is willing to let the voting booth be the seat of real power. People who have "their" government in their control can be armed to the teeth, and their government has nothing to fear from them. People like that will themselves confront mobs and armed political insurrections even if their state or nation could not or would not, and no such "mobs" would actually dare take to the streets and face such competent and principled people.
But a military under principled control of state or even federal oversight is not a bad thing. . . . the problem is only the question of principles which direct it. Just as any collection of citizens with arms might not be a bad thing, and it is the principles which the citizens hold and maintain which must be judged as good or bad.
On that point, I maintain that we have less to fear from citizens moved by ideals of representative government than we have to fear from high-handed ideologues moved by ideals of what everyone must do, even to save mother earth.
