Quote:
Quote by: gallo  Sure you would. The amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on the right of the state to maintain a militia.
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.
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.
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. |
If the state maintains the militia, it is not a militia, but a state army. A militia is self-supporting.
My comment as to weapons being dished out was part of the overall criticism that a militia cannot be maintained or directed by a political power. The weapons of a militia are, as you said, privately owned. This must be true today also.
A militia is a military unit, one that can and typically does act in support of state forces, but it is not under direct military control. That kind of military forces is a reservist army, not a militia.
We can only guess and put forth our opinions on the real meaning of "well-regulated", but I stand by mine. It is of course preferable for militias to have trained, many did have training of sorts back at the time of the revolutionary war, but it is in the nature of militias to be quickly raised and heavily green.