Tennessee -
Thanks for the note. I didn't have to go far into your linked article before finding a rather obvious and glaring flaw:
1.10 What is a militia?
A. A militia is a body of armed citizens, with some military training, who may be called to temporary active military service in times of emergency.
The author can claim to be absolutely right, just as long as everyone accepts HIS definition. I object to his claim on the following grounds:
1) There is no shortage of examples of purely civilian militias throughout history that were not supported by or under the authority of any government. Even today, you will occasionally read of this militia or that militia fighting government troops in this or that country.
2) Parliamentarian, Andrew Fletcher, the author of
A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias makes it very clear, very plain and very obvious that he refers to only armed individuals apart from govenment sponsorship or command as being a "well regulated militia". He does so after a rather thorough discussion of standing armies, government sponsored militias and mercenary troops.
Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning?
Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time?
Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time? If so, why the hell would they do that?