by DoomYoshi on Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:15 am
I don't believe the militias that came from the militia act have the same meaning as militia in the second amendment.
Here's why I think this.
My understanding is:
Constitution of the US is written but several states won't sign it, because they are worried about over-reach of federal power. Bill of Rights is added as a concession to limit the federal power. In that context, the reason for the second amendment is so that states can raise militias against a standing federal army.
So a federal militia (the militias which Washington used, the forerunners of the national guard) is not a militia as intended by the second amendment. I know that you can find several federalists who have a different view of the second amendment. However, since the entire bill of rights was meant for the anti-federalists, we should really be looking at what they were hoping to gain.
In any case, I was just trolling a bit. The above quotes come from Washington's frustrations in the mid 1770s from having to retrain a new group of farmers every season. He just wanted an actual army to work with. I don't actually think Washington opposed the Bill of Rights, but he wasn't one of the people pushing for it, either.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░