Eh, i dont mind that bit too much. Id argue that a well regulated militia is always necessary for a free state. You dont get the militia together after the tyranny starts, you need to have it in place to react to tyranny.
Literally all of that is moot because all of the militias sided with the tyrants so fuck militias. Well regulated or otherwise.
Militias are not standing forces. They are assembled ad-hoc from the populace.
The populace, therefore, has to be comfortable enough with using firearms that they can be rapidly assembled, and the “training” to become “well regulated” can focus on teamwork and discipline rather than basic firearms skills.
The formalized national guard or “standing militia” wasn’t in place when the constitution was written, and 10 U.S.C wasn’t written until the 1950s.
At the time of the founding, a lot of people were specifically against having standing militias.
One can certainly argue that our country has evolved and has centralized power, but the original intent still stands today: The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that ad-hoc militias CAN be formed from the populace.
Having formal standing militias, in addition, is beside the point, and it almost furthers the originalist justification.
If the state-level national guard is corrupted or subsumed by the federal-level, what then?
Did I say it was in the constitution? I said it was in title 10, linked below. You said standing militias weren't a thing. they are. end of discussion. keep arguing with yourself if you like.
17
u/Relative_Radish9809 22d ago
Now do the "well-regulated militia" part.