They are more representatives of today's National Guard. However, when a important distinction needs to be made; the militia was expected to arm itself. The young government of the United States was ill equipped to supply even .
these meager necessities. It relied on the people to supply their selves. Being of bold frontier stock, tempered by the rigorous frontier, and .
accustomed to frontier violence no self-respecting settler would be without a weapon, it provided protection and food. (secondamendment.net).
The young government expected people to bring their own weapons, the reason for this is it relieved the government of a great expense. The government had little funds to spare for a standing army, let alone enough funds to carry on the basic duties of running a government. Recognizing the benefits of an armed populace to a novice democracy, the government not only condoned an armed citizenry, it encouraged it. The militia, therefore, was not a militaristic or para-militaristic fighting force. It was composed of an arm citizenry, willing to serve when called upon by the government.
This country was born of violence, yet in the progression of our social systems, violence was accepted as normal. It is not so today. Our social systems have developed to the point where economic warfare can be waged instead of actual warfare. Is this to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is obsolete and no longer needed, have we progressed to the point where we do not need fire arms to protect our institutions? It was a short fifty-five years ago that this country was involved in the greatest war to .
ever consume an entire world. There are still tyrants in the world today, who believe they can succeed by weaponry and anarchy. Let us not deceive ourselves in to believing we have developed and attained such a level of improvement that we can solve our problems peacefully. It is the knowledge that your opponent is well armed and willing to defend himself the acts as deterrence.
