The whole idea of an armed population was a good one in the days that the Constitution was first drawn up. That was before the days of an effective police force.
By using the logic above (in bold), then it could be argued that the idea of an armed population is still a good idea. I mean no disrespect to the local police and sherriff deputies, but our public servants are not effective at extending protection to an individual. Granted, in the neighborhood I live in now I see a policeman every ten minutes. This actually makes me have my firearms a little more readily available than not. Also, back home in small town Georgia, I don't think I've ever personally seen a sherriff deputy on patrol. Granted, I have only vististed for a couple of weeks at a time, and that time was generally filled with some form of work at the house. Due to the fact that it would take a deputy several minutes (probably double digit minutes) to arrive on the scene at my family's house, a firearm is necessary there as well. If my parents' only means of defense was a telephone...well, you get the picture.
In the days where the only way a population could defend themselves from robbers and other criminals was firearms. However the Chinese army - for example - is a whole different kettle of fish to the local gang of baddies.
While this is true, I think that the Chinese army is largely a non-issue. They aren't flying over, and they certainly aren't going to sail their army over. Our navy would be in the record books for killing the most enemies in the shortest amount of time. Any invading army's chance at attacking the USA with any measure of success would be to first take over Mexico, and attack us from there. Where our government has already proven that they don't know anything about homeland security. But even then, you have Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. Good luck sending an army through that. Not to mention that an American insurgency would make the Iraq quagmire look like a boy scout picnic at Yellowstone.
A decent sized army as a defensive force serves a purpose. Especially in a world where armies are constantly being upgraded to attack more quickly and with more stealth. Considering the fact that America is almost single handly funding the biggest threat to the safety of the entire world I would have thought they would realise a decent sized army is a must.
I would agree that a defensive army would be necessary. The defensive army's sole purpose should be training and preparing for a homeland invasion. I guess you could say like the Spartans.
The idea of militias is a good one and I'm not saying in a country like America small, elite and some what controlled militias could be a vital source of protection to local communities should the worst happen but to rely on these militias to defend a country hated universally is pretty stupid in my opinion...
Anything resembling governmental control on a militia is destructive to the intent of the militia. One of the puposes of the militia is to overthrow a tyrannical government. Any governmental control would render this duty pretty much moot. The National Guard is an example. They are used as a coercive arm of the state to enforce the laws of the government. The militia can elect their own leaders. They can take care of themselves, period. The average citizen has NOTHING to fear from the militia, but politicians should go to sleep thinking "have I done anything today that will get me shot tomorrow".
Relying on the militia to defend a country like the US probably wouldn't be the best idea at first. It may catch on, it may not. Honestly, with our military spread all over the world, that is pretty much what we're left with anyway. The militia could assist a defensive army very well, though. They would have much more knowledge of the local area than an army could hope to have and so on.
