They don't. reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress The States choose the commanding officers over the militia.
this is what the Founders wanted. a public militia that would be called forth during time of crisis, but would be self-sufficient when it needed to oppose domestic tyranny.
Not when the Constitution gives Congress the unfettered power to define who is in the militia. See 10 USC 311. Does it mention all able bodied citizens?
Ron, look up the definition of a "militia". From Wiki: A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, ... A militia is made up of civilians, Ron. And those civilians have to know how to use guns and have their own guns. This is what the Founders were talking about. They didn't say you had to be a member of a militia to own gun. They were saying that "the people" must have the right to own guns as a prerequisite so that a militia can be formed in the first place. So, they gave the right to keep and bear arms to all citizens.
The ideal of a Militia also began in the Era of limited means to transport Soldiers, by having local Militia Members, in times of need, it was far quicker to activate local Militia than wait days for Troops from out of State.
Such was not the question that was presented to yourself. The question was why the federal government of the united states did not utilize its authority to set a national standard of what type of firearm may be produced and owned, while outlawing any variation of this nationalized standard?
What you have presented here is nothing less than an epic and catastrophic failure of logic. You acknowledge that part of the purpose of the militia is to be capable of resisting governmental tyranny... and then say the government has the power to dictate what weapons they can use? Do you not comprehend that by stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed ensures that the people have access to weapons that can actually function in resisting tyranny? No, you're saying that they're supposed to resist tyranny but the government they might end up needing to resist can saddle them with whatever useless and nonfunctional weapons they wish? Do you not see how laughable that is?
