I might point out that when the US Constitution and its first 10 amendments were written the militia members provided their own weapons. And they would mostly have been hunting weapons.
I believe that the state, actually mostly community, militias would have been on call to the federal government in case of invasion. So that the state National Guard organizations have mostly taken the place of the militias.
As far as a well regulated militia, I think that would imply a strict control of the militias organization and training by the sponsoring state. That of course is supplied by the National Guard. And of course the National Guard provides a unified command and control structure with the regular armed forces. A separate state militia would probably not be as easily integrated into a national defense.
As far as invasion of one state by another I find it unlikely. However, I do know that at one time Oklahoma's Governor, Alpha Bill Murray, called out the National Guard to protect a bridge across the Red River from Texas. A new toll bridge had been built and they wanted to tear down the old free bridge. I don't know if any other states have come that close to war with a neighboring state. Of course right now I think Governor Murray's actions are looked at more with amusement than with pride. A demonstration of the klutzes we have elected from time to time.
Anyway, the constitution gives the federal government control over inter-state affairs. So if one state tried to invade another the US Army would probably be called on to intervene. The chances of such an event are extremely remote.
And the constitution gives the federal government responsibility for defending the country from foreign invasions, so a state militia would only be useful as a source of conscripts for the regular army, which is what the National Guard provides.
Bill Gill
