[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The militia was to defend their home States against foreign enemies or internal insurrection, not it’s own forces - fighting against the US Government /Armed Forces would be treason, so why would they need parity for an illegal reason?

In Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) of the US Constitution, it states:

I disagree, the reading I have done implies the opposite. Any foreign enemies or internal insurrection would be, correctly, dealt with by the National defence forces.

Here's an interpretation of what I and the Gun owners alluded to:

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."