| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 13 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[citation needed] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's not exactly an unusual claim, and it was very much the loudly espoused position of the Republican Party until, well, last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... > In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms"... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||