[gallo]

Quote by: G. Adams As for the meaning of well-regulated militia, if it were meant to be the "state approved" militia, then surely you wouldn't need the amendment at all.

Sure you would. The amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on the right of the state to maintain a militia.

Weapons would be dished out as needed to those the state called to arms.

Actually not. At the time the Constitution was written, the members of the militia furnished their own arms. You're confusing it from the modern day militia that we call the National Guard.

Why, we could just call it a conscript army, as that's what it would be if it we're under direct political control. A militia is a locally raised force that is not under such control, if it were then it would just be another unit of the military.

But it is and it was a military unit, and it was, by definition, meant to be "...in all cases...under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." It was a state military unit, under the control of and regulated by the state. There was a great fear of standing armies back then. That fear carried well into the first days of our country.

The "well-regulated" part suggests to me the framers were being cautious over their ability to stop uprisings, Shay's rebellion in mind. By saying "well-regulated" they were preventing any mob from claiming to be a rightful militia.

Or, they were saying that the militia should be "trained to arms." One problem with the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War was that the militia units generally weren't good soldiers at first. They tended not to work well with other units of the Army, and tended not to follow orders well. But they were quite effective when deployed as irregular units.