Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as pol…
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
Well, the Founders REALLY did not like the idea of a standing army.
At that times, standing armies were basically the tool of the dynasty in charge (England being a somewhat limited exception--where the nation-state had a larger role as national identity coalesced there sooner than in other parts of Europe) and they were often used as police or as repressive tools (as there wasn't really anything like a civilian police force at that time).
Plus they were often boarded on the local population as there were no barracks.
Plus they were expensive.
So hey, lets avoid having one by relying on an armed populace as a militia instead.
Militias were also popular in the south because of the whole potential slave rebellion thing.
The militia was never well regulated or trained or particularly good at fighting, so we ended up with a standing army anyway (even if it was on the small side).
The reality is that militias have generally sucked at he whole defense thing. They tend to either not show up or fold at the first opportunity... or die in droves from disease when called up because sanitation and discipline aren't things.
Not to mention that when the 2nd Amend was authored there was no government or military to purchase and distribute guns to its soldiers. Organized militias were the military. We were fighting for our independence ‘in order to form a more perfect union’.
Yeah, it's messy and has been since back then... at least the third amendment is more clear?
Neither of us has even mentioned the advances in firearms tech and materials, etc.
Or the creation of police forces and the end of the frontier.