A well regulated militia?

[jmg257]

35. Seems like you are confusing the military (armies, Navy) with the militia.

Congress had power To raise and support Armies, To provide and maintain a Navy, To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; AND...to provide for calling forth the Militia, and To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.

Clearly the State militias are not the same as the traditional military (Army, Navy, Troops).


Washington was urging congress for "a uniform and effective system for the Militia of the United States".

Which makes sense as the Militias had very vital roles to play, when called forth in federal service, in securing our liberties (execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion).

An effective militia system would reduce the need for large standing Armies, and so reduce the possibility of "a military coup".

Disarmed states militias, or ones that were not well-regulated, would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Militia system, the recourse being a greater need of a large standing army, and so a greater threat to our liberties.

Although the importance of the State militias was recognized in the Constitution, provisions for exactly how the people would be called forth, and regulated AND ARMED - to be provided for BY Congress - still needed to be sorted out.

The 2nd amendment ensures of that happening, i.e. well-regulated Militias ARE NECESSARY, and the people who would serve in the Militias c/would not be DISarmed by the new Congress (or the States for that matter).



The proposed articles which became the Bill of Rights were sent to the states in March of 1789, so not sure where you are going that it took so long to ratify 10 of the 12. Anyway, the Uniform Militia Bill wasn't signed into law until 1792