comment t1_ewf2b7y re: Has the second amendment ever been necessary to the security of the USA?
reddit (comment)
{ posted: Friday, 9 August, 2019 at 7:01am // views: 8 // words: 302 }

It's interesting, because the US has always seemed to like the idea of a small, unprofessional, citizen military, while also always quickly recognizing the need for an organized professional one. I think it pained most of the Revolutionary-era Patriots to have to use a coordinated non-militia force, but they saw no alternative in taking on the most powerful army of that day. But that would be the reason that Washington resigned immediately after the War's conclusion (a HUGELY meaningful and selfless act that is far-too-often overlooked) and the US' professional military was reduced to less than a hundred, basically just a few men to man the defenses at West Point, if memory serves.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I think that the militia typically worked best when it came to dealing with Indians in the frontier. Word would spread of someone being scalped, and the adult men in the area (who were considered members of the local militia just by being adult male residents, hence early census' being divvied up into "Capt. so-and-so's District") could be brought together to go and address the issue.

This might be a bit too much editorializing, but as much as I also idealize the idea of having a military formed exclusively by non-professional volunteers who are summoned when needed, it really only worked when our "threats" were mostly domestic, as in the constant threat of Indian incursions and slave rebellions. Times have changed drastically and every resident of the US is now under the control of our government and can be dealt with via the criminal justice system. It doesn't make sense to have Captain Bill walk around town knocking on doors and telling the men to grab their guns and ammo because the Governor called and ordered them all to Syria.

[context: PMcCullough @ reddit]