A Well Regulated Militia

The neglected part of the second amendment is in bold below:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The current view of the supreme court has ruled that the part in bold is not a requirement that means you must be part of a militia. That is the dissent argues that the second amendment is a collective right, for the "well regulated militia" to bear, but the majority has rejected that. I can accept that reading readily enough.

What I can't help but note, however, is that we have no well regulated militia.  We have the right to bear arms, it's one of the most popular rights in America, so where's our well regulated militia?  The dream of a militia is probably long forgotten and even hidden behind what sort of groups call themselves "militias" at the moment.  The original notion for needing a well regulated militia is rooted in a bias against having a standing army.

In one debate at the Constitutional Convention, if I recall correctly, a standing army was likened to an erect penis, it might make things exciting at home but also invites foreign adventures. Strategically, if the notion of a well regulated militia is even possible to execute, it is a very sound and robust defense model.  The fact is it is hard to occupy nations with well armed citizenry, perhaps impossible depending on the criteria one uses to classify an occupation as "successful".

I think it could work, and it could work against seditious groups that believe the second amendment gives them, or was given them to enable, taking up arms against the Republic.  I would far prefer a still more lenient restriction on guns if a gun permit came with militia training, including a way to be called to arms to defend the country in case of invasion, and in order to reduce the need for a standing military.  It's a military system on the model of volunteer fireman.  People very well trained (regulated) and of confirmed loyalty to the Constitution could as far as I'm concerned have armed tanks and armored vehicles, and be relied on for national defense.

Such forces could be deployed much like the National Guard, in times of crisis, whatever the foe to the nation.