Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
No, I have not. Once again, you refuse to address ANY of my clarifications, because if you do, you know it's over. You continue to classify your misinterpretations as evidence of my lying, which is simply false.
|
Yes, you do. You ignore the quotes of the Founders and the Founders themselves because they didn't believe what you say, and you also ignore the actual history of their recorded deeds because that also disproves your opinions.
It IS already over. It's not that things WOULD be over. They already ARE over. The founders favored a standing army which contradicts your first position and they also favored a permanent standing army which contradicts your second position. The fact that they said as much and actually maintained that army does mean that this "debate" is over. Your revisionist history is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
The possibility of a constant renewal would support what? A standing army under under the renewal clause of the Constitution.
Allowing for its creation for emergency purposes would allow for what? A standing army under under the renewal clause of the Constitution.
You are portraying these as different viewpoints, when they all support my final conclusions, which you cannot refute:
This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only.
|
I already refuted your position, and then your position after you changed it. The founders supported a permanent standing army, which is why they established one after the Revolutionary War is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
And again, I've never said the Founding Fathers wanted no standing army at any time whatsoever. That is false and completely unconstitutional. I've explained it more than once, and you continue to ignore my clarifications and explanations so that you can continue your "argument" ad nauseum because you cannot accept having lost this debate.
|
You said the Founding Fathers wanted no standing army. You in Post 13:
Proof that the Founders did indeed want a national militia composed of the people and not standing armies:
Your opinions are ignoring facts and denial ad nauseum.