Well, sort of. The militia was the fighting force of the government, and subject to the authority of State government. So by definition, it used the same weapons, because it was the fighting force that the government used. It did not have a standing army. And that's precisely why it was "necessary to the security of a free State".RZehr wrote:I think the Second Amendment is every bit as extreme as people believe today. Remember the context it was written in. It wasn't about personal protection, or hunting. It was about over throwing the government with a well regulated militia (a point lost among many on the right) - a militia that was equipped with the same firearms that the government used.Bootstrap wrote:I really don't like to mess with the Constitution, and I consider the Bill of Rights important to our freedom. But for the first 200 years, the Second Amendment was rarely litigated or discussed, and courts have never held that it means some of the things extremists are saying today. I think it's rather obsolete - we no longer have a "well-regulated militia" that depends on individuals having guns, and we do have a standing army, which the founders were opposed to. I don't think that privately held guns are the source of American freedom or the true test of our freedom. But I think it's hard to change the Constitution, and I don't think the Second Amendment is as extreme as what some people say.
In Article 1, the Constitution tells us that the Militia is under the authority of the President of the United States, who can call on it to suppress insurrections:2nd Amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So one of the goals of the militias was to "suppress Insurrections," and the President could order them to do so. A "well-regulated" militia is subject to the authority described in Article 1. This was written shortly after the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which were the kind of insurrections a militia should be able to suppress.Article 1 Clause 15 wrote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
But these "well-regulated militias" are directly accountable to the individual States to avoid the danger of giving too much power to the federal government. Madison described these State militias in Federalist 48, one of the essays used to persuade people that the Constitution should be adopted.
To Madison, the notion of a standing army for the Federal government would be horrible, but it was inconceivable:
Ooops. That happened long ago, certainly by the end of World War II, and today we most Americans seem to accept a standing army as the way things should be. But this was something the founders genuinely feared, because they generally believed that a demagogue with a military behind him was one of the greatest threats to democracy. But let's keep following his argument:Federalist 48 (Madison) wrote:The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
I highlighted three things in that text. First, Madison thought it highly unlikely that Americans would ever settle for a standing army. (Standing navies were always considered OK, FWIW.) Second, Madison believed that the State governments, which were in charge of the militias, would lead the charge against the Federal government that got out of hand and established a standing army. The phrase "simple government" means a government that is not composed of multiple parts, single, like "if the eye is simple" in the KJV. The subordinate governments of the States are the reason we do not have a simple government. Third, Madison thought that Europeans might overthrow their governments if they could, and that's why they weren't allowed to have arms, but he also thought that without the help of subordinate governments, even arms would not be enough for them to do so.Federalist 48 (Madison) wrote:Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
So what happened to that vision? First off, the Civil War showed us what happens if states actually do what Madison proposed, and it pretty much destroyed the country. After the Civil War, three amendments significantly changed the relationship between the States and the federal government - the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Here's part of the 14th:
That makes it quite clear that when push comes to shove, the Federal government's authority is greater than that of the individual states. And we saw that when Eisenhower was able to federalize the Arkansas National Guard in 1957.Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I do think it's original purpose is mostly obsolete, and I do not think that it is the source of American freedom. We no longer organize our military this way, except for the National Guard, and we are careful to keep that under the authority of the Federal government. It was never intended to enable popular insurrection, and since the Civil War, we have clearly changed our minds about letting the States fight the Federal Government.RZehr wrote:Maybe it is obsolete with life being so much different nowadays. Maybe it isn't. But whether it is obsolete or not, shouldn't hinge on crime rates.
And let's face it, if you wanted to fight the Federal Government, an AR-15 wouldn't do it for you.