The Founding Fathers Were Worried

The founding fathers were worried, more than just about anything, about the threat a standing military would provide a free people.

Their worries were answered for the first 140 years of our nation’s history with a national military that was the absolute bare minimum needed to secure an isolated nation’s peacetime borders – the US Army in the 1870s included ten regiments of cavalry, 20 of infantry, and about eight of artillery, which was a tiny fraction of the army of any continental power – augmented in times of national emergency by troops raised by the states and lent do (and paid for by) the Feds for the duration of the emergency (which was where units like the “First Minnesota” and “67th Massachusetts” came from).

And between the strictures built into the system – the Posse Comitatus rule – and a generally well-directed sense of duty , the military has been generally good at staying out of internal business pretty much as long as there’s been a military.

But one thing the founding fathers never predicted in the 1780s – when “local law enforcement” meant a constable and whose main job was to watch for out-of-control fires – the power and scope of local and federal law enforcement today.

Whether it’s local police turning their SWAT teams into Panzergrenadier units, departments turning “law enforcement” into a stream of cash flow, cops turning crime scenes into free-fire zones and civilians into collateral damage stats, or even the most innocuous corners of the Federal Government coming up with the budget to have paramilitary units with full battle rattle, it’s fairly clear to me that the dynamic the Founders were worried about is alive and well…

…and turning the local and federal police into the “standing army” they were worried about in the first place.

Posted

May 16, 2014

Liberty, Police Powers

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

7 responses to “The Founding Fathers Were Worried”

nate

May 16, 2014

The Founders worried about a national army, not the local police, because at that time, cops and citizens had the same weapons. It would have been impossible for Andy and Barney’s two muskets to dominate everyone else in Mayberry. But give them an armored personnel carrier and automatic weapons while everyone else is limited to a .38 revolver and suddenly, the unthinkable becomes thinkable. Throw in a complicit media and politicians more interested in power than the people . . . .
justplainangry

May 16, 2014

OK, Post Office may have a mandate to be armed to the teeth, but why did USDA just sent out a tender for submachine guns and ballistic body armor? This info is from FBO.
Adrian

May 16, 2014

USDA? How about the BLM, HHS, EPA etc??!! The only “weapon” that the USPS should be budgeted for is pepper spray!!

Why the militarization of seemingly every non-law enforcement federal government agency isn’t alarming every US citizen is purely shocking, as is (but predictable) the lack of reporting by the MSM.
Adrian

May 16, 2014

That said, I certainly want a “.40 Cal. S&W, ambidextrous safety, semi-automatic or 2 shot burts trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe or folding, magazine 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation” sub machine gun.
Joe

May 17, 2014

While occasions may (rarely) arise when the need a tactical response is needed. However, you’d think that the feds could just make one cooperatively-designed team that could be deployed if needed. Many smaller LE agencies do this and it’s quite cost effective.

Such a weapon as described by Adrian is certainly not for beginners. I’ve had a little experience with the Glock Model 18, basically a select fire Model 17. I found it impossible to control, but assume it can be done with lots of practice. I suppose it would fit nicely in the briefcase of some FHA accountant.

As previously stated, law enforcement used to be an art. It is now a science, and most sciences are comprised of absolute, zero tolerance operating guidelines. Hence the lack of discretion and one-size-fits-all when it comes to tactical responses.
justplainangry

May 19, 2014

and in .40S&W yet… can you spell muzzle climb?
thorleywinston

May 19, 2014

OK, Post Office may have a mandate to be armed to the teeth, but why did USDA just sent out a tender for submachine guns and ballistic body armor? This info is from FBO.

Probably for the United States Forest Service which is part of the USDA and a federal law enforcement agency whose agents normally are armed as part of their duties.

Word to the wise, whenever you see a story that makes you wonder “why would this federal department need to buy weapons” it’s usually a good idea to do some digging and find out if there is a law enforcement agency that is part of that department because that’s who the purchase is probably for. Frankly given the choice between beefing up a single law enforcement agency like the FBI and tasking them with enforcing all federal laws, I’d rather have that responsibility diffused among several different agencies each tasked with enforcing laws in a particular subject area or jurisdiction.