I bet I know this subject better than you do. 😉 Read Edwin Viera for example. R

I bet I know this subject better than you do. 😉
Read Edwin Viera for example. Read the Supreme Court’s interpretations. Especially now that scalia has ended the positive law activism, and restored the sovereignty of the people, under the natural law, requiring due process of concurrency of legislation.
The militia meant and means ‘the militia’: every able bodied man capable of bearing arms. And the second amendment guarrantees the right of every such man to bear arms.
The under the declaration – the source of it’s legitimacy is that militia is the people and the people are soverign, not the government. The militia must exist to prevent the rise of a government that seeks sovereignty independent of the people. And that the people’s choice is determined by concurrency of regions, classes, (and I assume now, sexes). Just as the common law, relies on the commonality of findings of the court across regions, classes (and I assume now, sexes).
Yet, despite the 2nd amendment, the federal government, always poor in the beginning, never funded training the militia -and left it to the citizenry – in no small part because of the ineffectiveness of the militia in the revolutionary war. (I’m aware because Washington’s left was commanded by my xth great grandfather.)
The national guard claims legitimacy back to 1636, but it is just a claim – for all intents and purposes it’s not a militia but a reserve.
If the national guard trained every able bodied man, was organized into regiments by locality, and had a duty to protect the constitution against violations by the government, then it would be and could be considered to ALSO include the militia.
In practice sheriffs and those they have deputized have generally filled the role at small scale.

Reply addressees: @VinceMinutella @aldafa_ir @TheRichFromCali