2nd Amendment: For the militia, or because of the militia?

[grampajack]

I was witness to a debate today, as to whether the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is meant to imply that the amendment is needed to ensure that a well regulated militia is possible, or whether it was meant to imply that the people needed the right to bear arms in order to keep the militia in check.

Supposedly the latter interpretation is the historically correct one. The person argued that giving the people the right to bear arms was meant to protect them in case the militia should ever become tyrannical. So essentially he was arguing that they saw the militia as being a necessary evil, but one that could lead to tyranny, and thus ensured that the people themselves always had arms to keep the militia from becoming too powerful in relation to the people.

I had never thought of it that way before, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me in the context of the founders' distrust for standing armies, from which a well regulated militia is not far off.

Does anyone know of any historical proof either way?

 

[GRIZ22]

2A is not there for the militia. Organizing and arming the militia is covered in Art 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. No need to say it again in the 2A.

The militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separated from references to the militia by a comma in amy version of the 2A. A comma indicates a list or a separation in thought.

The 2A is there for people to protect themselves from the government including the militia. There are several references to this but all you need is to know the grammar used to write the 2A.

 

[Wisco]

As ratified by the states, although there are other versions:

"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."

I've always believed that it's an individual right to own arms, but the whole point was for states to be able to have a militia made up of armed, able-bodied citizens to prevent overreach by the army or navy or other armed force of the United States.

 

[Wisco]

The 2A is there for people to protect themselves from the government including the militia. There are several references to this but all you need is to know the grammar used to write the 2A.

I've never read that anywhere.

A militia is necessary, but individuals need arms to be able to suppress the militia?

 

[Wisco]

whether it was meant to imply that the people needed the right to bear arms in order to keep the militia in check.

People needed the right to bear arms to make up the militia to protect the states from the federal government. The militia is kept in check by the local communities supporting or not supporting it with their own arms and personnel.

Since the 1700s, the militia has become the national guard and the guard has grown to be a local version of the federal Armed Forces, especially since 9/11. It's still a state asset under direction of the governor, unless called to federal service, and has its roots in the militias of 200 years ago.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

The militia is the citizens...
Literally.

I not sure it makes sense that the citizens would need protecting from themselves (the militia).

The militia clause in the 2A is about making sure the citizens can form an effective militia against any and all enemies, foreign and domestic.

A militia needs the same level of weapons that their enemies may have.

 

[RPRNY]

,Neither. The prefatory clause and the operative clause are independent in terms of meaning.

However, the historical record speaks much more supportively to the first assertion rather than the second. Opposition to standing armies as the professional coercive force of the government is well established in the historical record. A citizen "militia" made up from the adult population was the solution, so viewing the prefatory clause as a way to counter the militia has no basis.

"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."

There are two things going on in the prefatory clause. First, a recognition in light of [then] recent events, ie the War of Independence, that in order for the state (by which, read "nation") to remain free, it must have a force capable of defending against aggressors - thus the call for a "well-regulated", ie effective, militia. Second, also in light of [then] recent events, the opposition to a standing army, such as that of the British, (don't forget that the 3rd Amendment forbids the garrisoning of troops on the people!) and the view that it should be a citizen militia that ensures the security of the state. So, the prefatory clause states a need for an armed force to protect the state from aggression, and states that in order to ensure that the state remains free, that armed force ought be made up from a citizens' militia. The operative clause, which states a course of action and law, forbids the state from infringing on the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. An armed adult populace being the source of the militia and, by virtue of being armed, guaranteeing the security of a free state both, as and when required to form an armed force against enemies foreign, and as a counter to the potential tyranny of enemies [of freedom] domestic.

The Second Amendment should not be viewed in isolation. The First acknowledges that the government [the state] may not control or regulate religious belief, speech/expression [and implicit is 'criticism of government'], or peaceable assembly. The Second ensures these unalienable [neither granted by government, nor subject to removal by government] rights by virtue of an armed populace capable of throwing off tyranny (of ensuring the security of a free state), and the Third addresses a major grievance among British colonists, as well as further guarding against a standing army capable of enforcing tyranny: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

So, the prefatory clause addresses the well established opposition to a standing army as a potential coercive tool of government while acknowledging the need for an armed force to address aggression. A well regulated militia is necessary because the state will need to defend against external aggression. And, a militia should serve this purpose because a citizen force, as opposed to a standing professional army, is less likely to be misused by the state as a tool of coercion, thereby ensuring the security (against enemies foreign and domestic) of a free (from foreign domination and domestic tyranny) state. The operative clause forbids the government from acting to deny the populace their unalienable right to self defense (from both foreign domination and domestic tyranny) through owning and carrying firearms.

Anti-civil rights campaigners have used the prefatory clause in various ways to attempt to undermine or reinterpret the operative clause. The most old and tired effort is to link the prefatory and operative clauses, ie only members of a well-regulated militia (the National Guard?) shall have the right to keep and bear arms, or only in service to the militia may one keep and bear arms. These tawdry efforts have been so well refuted elsewhere, that I will not rehash the case here. A more nuanced effort to attack the unalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms is to suggest that because the prefatory clause has no force of law, neither should the out of date operative clause. Here, the anti-civil rights campaigner notes that the US does have and does maintain a standing army (and Navy, etc.). Therefore, they argue, since we have de facto ignored the prefatory clause, we can safely ignore the operative clause. However nuanced, this attempt is bogus. The prefatory clause states an opinion, it creates only "a sense of the Founders". It does not create law. The prefatory clause does not direct action, nor does it forbid action. If it read "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the creation of a standing army is forbidden, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", then perhaps this gambit would have merit. In this case, the prefatory clause directs a course of action and law by forbidding the creation of a standing army. And, were it so written, if we now had a standing army, one could argue both the illegality of that army and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may indeed be infringed. But it wasn't written that way.

So, the operative clause is the matter of substance in the Second Amendment. It directs action and law. It forbids government from acting to contravene the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. Whether ANY regulation or restriction of that right constitutes that right being "infringed" is another matter and another discussion. The prefatory clause does not direct action or law. It provides a sense of the Founders that while an armed force may be needed, it ought to be established as and when necessary by a militia. Since the opposition to standing armies is well established in the historical record and since the Third Amendment to the Constitution addresses an important grievance relative to standing armies, this is well established fact. The "militia" is also well defined in both the historical record and subsequent US law as an armed body legally constituted from the adult population. There is no basis, other than speculation, to suggest that the operative clause is designed to counter the militia, as the militia is constituted from that body of people whose right to keep and bear arms is proscribed from being "infringed" upon.

 

[boom boom]

Grampjack, I would first read Stephen P. Hallbrook who covers this ground brilliantly in his various works and has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as authoritative on 2nd Amendment analysis versus the average bloke on the street.

Briefly, originalism comes in two flavors--intentionalism aka original intent of the individuals who passed the legislation or ratified a constitution or amendment or textualism--what did the text of the Constitution/amendment mean to the average person living in that era.

If you were doing intentionalist type analysis, one would look toward the attitudes and writings of those who wrote or influenced the writing of the Constitution. First, while Sam Adams and some others did not like standing armies (goes back to the fight between Parliament and King Charles I), most felt that a national army would be desirable, if nothing else, to maintain order in the territories and with the Native Americans-thus earlier than the 2nd Amendment came Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 which specifically grants Congress the power to create an army and in Clause 13, the power to create and maintain a navy. This was not a particularly controversial power to grant the national government as the Congress under the Articles had previously done both. See Federalist 41 believed written by Madison which argues that national defense is a key purpose of any nation. Antifederalists views on the subject are not to be considered as they lost the political fight. The problem with intentionalism is that the Second Amendment is not the work of one individual or even ten. It was carried into force by numerous legislators in the states and the national Congress. Thus, what Madison did or did not believe was the reach of the 2nd to assuaging Anti-Federalists regarding state militias , contra Rakove, is not to considered any more authoritative than any other member of Congress. Thus, the collective intent would be necessary to derive the meaning which quite frankly is almost impossible. Intentionalism makes it easy to pick and choose whose intent "should" matter rather than taking into account the common perception. However, even under intentionalism, people have never been defined as states, thus the people would be said to be the object necessary to carry out state militia power via arms.

Textualism would strive to take both what Anti-Federalists and Federalists took the clauses to mean at the time. First, the American context considers the English Bill of Rights and the history of the struggle between crown and Parliament that took place while America was being settled. By 1762, Blackstone considered the ownership of weapons as a natural right protected both as a means of self defense and of property necessary to carry out self defense. Both Federalists and their antagonists considered the new Constitution to grant the powers to the national government to create a national army and navy as well as federalize the states' militias. The first Militia Act of 1792 defined the President's role via congressional statute and the second Militia act of 1792 defined as who was included in the militia act which was every able-bodied free white male between 18 and 45. Later in 1862 expanded to 18-54 and including African American males. These acts established that the common people of the time understood that Congress could regulate the militia service of those called into federal duty. However, the Second Act specifically orders those enrolled in the military to ". . . .That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;"

Regarding then the Second Amendment ratified in December 1791 during the same term as the Congress that adopted the Militia Acts of 1792, contemplates widespread private ownership of military grade firearms--e.g. every able-bodied male from 18-45 but the inclusion of the word People in the text of the amendment broadens the understanding of the object of the 2nd. Private firearm ownership is necessary to carry forth the militia duties mentioned but not sufficient to carry the meaning of People in the amendment. Thus, the militia clause acts as an explanation of one of the reasons for protecting the right to keep and bear arms for free citizens. Self defense arguably is treated in the "mysterious 9th" as a right that predates organized governments and has been recognized as valid even by tyrants when employed by citizens against criminals.

Additional evidence during the Congressional debates regarding the Second Amendment's language. What is clear, even among the Anti-Federalist and Federalists is that no one asserted the power of the federal government to disarm citizens--period. Thus, the common meaning of the time of the second amendment would act to prevent any action by the national government to disarm the citizenry from whence the militia came. No draft of the Second ever included the right for states to create a militia where every other grant of power to states specifically calls them by name--e.g. the Tenth Amendment for example. States have never been defined as "the people" in any constitutional language. Note the difference between the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the Articles--One begins with We the People, while the latter mentions the specific state governments accepting the Articles of Confederation and clause one declares that each states is fully sovereign and the national government only has the powers ceded to it by the states.

The Second Amendment can be argued to protect individual rights even under a Living Constitutional understanding--e.g. the great object of the Bill of Rights is to protect individuals against state power and the 14th Amendment (whether under the fundamental freedoms analysis or the more original privileges and immunities clause) makes these individual protections binding on the states. The right to private ownership of firearms--outside of the context of militias has been a well established right existing in most state constitutions, generally supported by the body of most states, and is the primary means by which the established right of self defense recognized by every state, hunting, and protection against societal disorder such as looting during Katrina, riots, or terrorism

 

[Danoobie]

WE are the referred to "militia". When the SHTF, WE, as ad-hoc
MILITIA, are supposed to ("keep and bare arms") have our OWN
guns.

 

[Sunray]

"...the people needed the right to bear arms in order to keep the militia in check..." Nope. The People were the militia. The right to bear arms was meant to keep government, that doesn't mean Federal, from becoming tyrannical. The People did not include everybody either. If you didn't own land, for instance, you had no vote. Neither did women or non-whites.
Didn't work either. Government is now full of unelected civil servants making laws by regulation.
"...the founders' distrust for standing armies..." That had mostly to do with the cost of it.

 

[AlexanderA]

I was witness to a debate today, as to whether the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment is meant to imply that the amendment is needed to ensure that a well regulated militia is possible, or whether it was meant to imply that the people needed the right to bear arms in order to keep the militia in check.

IMO, neither. To the Founders, "the militia" was synonymous with "the people" (or at least the able-bodied, male portion thereof). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people of the States, individually and collectively, would have the means to resist federal usurpation and/or foreign invasion. Needless to say, this original vision fell by the wayside rather quickly with the demise of the universal militia system in the early 19th century. (It was gone by the 1830's or 1840's, to be replaced by a self-selected "volunteer" militia that was the basis for the forces that fought in the Civil War.) Since we no longer, in practice, have a "universal" militia, the 2nd Amendment right boils down to an individual right, undergirded by membership in a theoretical militia.

 

[grampajack]

2A is not there for the militia. Organizing and arming the militia is covered in Art 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. No need to say it again in the 2A.

The militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separated from references to the militia by a comma in amy version of the 2A. A comma indicates a list or a separation in thought.

The 2A is there for people to protect themselves from the government including the militia. There are several references to this but all you need is to know the grammar used to write the 2A.

My thought exactly. The National Guard would be the militia as outlined by the Constitution if there were no active duty federal Army, and if the states were unilaterally in charge of it rather than the federal Army. If the militia of the 2nd Amendment and the militia of Art 1 are the same entity, then the militia and the people are not synonymous like so many of us have been led to believe.

 

[RPZ]

At least in Federal statute - formerly Title 10 USC, Section 311 and 312, now 246 and 247 - there are TWO separate militias: the Organized Militia, and the Unorganized Militia. The latter is defacto every able bodied man not in the Organized Militia between the age of 18 and 64.

 

[AlexanderA]

The National Guard would be the militia as outlined by the Constitution if there were no active duty federal Army, and if the states were unilaterally in charge of it rather than the federal Army. If the militia of the 2nd Amendment and the militia of Art 1 are the same entity, then the militia and the people are not synonymous like so many of us have been led to believe.

The National Guard by no stretch of the imagination is the "constitutional militia." The defining characteristic of the constitutional militia is its universality. Serving in the militia was a duty of citizenship (applicable to all able-bodied, free males), much like the duty to serve on juries when summoned. Indeed, "the militia" and "the people" are synonymous, or at least they were when the 2nd Amendment was adopted.

The concept of "the militia," today, is a theoretical one only. That doesn't mean that it's not important in a constitutional-law sense.

 

[AlexanderA]

At least in Federal statute - formerly Title 10 USC, Section 311 and 312, now 246 and 247 - there are TWO separate militias: the Organized Militia, and the Unorganized Militia. The latter is defacto every able bodied man not in the Organized Militia between the age of 18 and 64.

The "constitutional militia" is much broader than the "unorganized militia" as defined today in the U.S. Code. You have to look at the militia system as it existed in 1791. (This was before the U.S. had a standing army to speak of.)

 

[RPZ]

The "constitutional militia" is much broader than the "unorganized militia" as defined today in the U.S. Code. You have to look at the militia system as it existed in 1791. (This was before the U.S. had a standing army to speak of.)

Yes, I am merely citing what is in Federal statute alone. And every able bodied man between 18 and 64 is pretty darn broad as it is. Hardly what current Bolsheviks try and peddle that the Militia is "just the National Guard".

 

[Trunk Monkey]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

 

[DaveTNC]

,
<snip>
There are two things going on in the prefatory clause. First, a recognition in light of [then] recent events, ie the War of Independence, that in order for the state (by which, read "nation") to remain free, it must have a force capable of defending against aggressors - thus the call for a "well-regulated", ie effective, militia. Second, also in light of [then] recent events, the opposition to a standing army, such as that of the British, (don't forget that the 3rd Amendment forbids the garrisoning of troops on the people!) and the view that it should be a citizen militia that ensures the security of the state. So, the prefatory clause states a need for an armed force to protect the state from aggression, and states that in order to ensure that the state remains free, that armed force ought be made up from a citizens' militia. The operative clause, which states a course of action and law, forbids the state from infringing on the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. An armed adult populace being the source of the militia and, by virtue of being armed, guaranteeing the security of a free state both, as and when required to form an armed force against enemies foreign, and as a counter to the potential tyranny of enemies [of freedom] domestic.
</snip>

This is the way I understand it, and if I recall correctly it's the way it was taught in my history classes, way back when schools actually taught history.

 

[reddog81]

i agree with RPRNY and his post #7.

A big part of the problem when reading the amendment today is that the term militia has no relevant meaning like it would have 200+ years ago. The only militia's we think of today are small groups of survivalists living in fortified compounds or the National Guard. For most people there is no connection that they could be potentially part of the militia.

 

[Captain33036]

In the English language, commas can be used to separate independent clauses.

 

[RPRNY]

...
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Subsequent Court interpretations are of course relevant to the current standing of the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment, so I do not take issue with you citing such interpretations. However, (a) is wrong, even in purely grammatical terms. The prefatory clause does not announce a purpose, as stated by the Court (I understand that these are the Court's statements, not your own, so my critique is of the Court, not you). There is no grammatical interpretation in which "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." can be construed to announce a purpose, as in "for the operative clause". It expresses a view. It makes a statement. But it establishes nothing, forbids nothing, and in legislative and juridical effect, does nothing.

Whether it was some form of wordsmithing compromise with the anti-federalists or something else entirely, the prefatory clause has no impact on the operative clause. If the Second Amendment had been written "The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", the prefatory clause would have no more impact on the operative clause than does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," other perhaps than relevance. The interpretation that "militia" means all eligible adults is helpful, however, it still suggests that the right to keep and bear arms is somehow conditional on membership in the militia. Congress may ban the militia. They may write legislation that defines the "militia" as former members of the military or as registered members of "xy Party who have received approved military and political indoctrination and training as certified for the High Council for Correct Political Thought". The composition of the militia is irrelevant to the operative clause that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The prefatory clause communicates a sentiment or view. The operative clause denies government the right to disarm the people and acknowledges the individual unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The prefatory clause is largely window dressing.

 

[CopperFouling]

Whether it was some form of wordsmithing compromise with the anti-federalists or something else entirely, the prefatory clause has no impact on the operative clause.

Whatever you think of the Supreme Court ruling in Heller, the majority opinion was objectively incorrect in asserting that there are two clauses in the Second Amendment. The amendment doesn't even have two verbs. (In case you're wondering, "being" on its own like that is a participle.)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[RPZ]

If the militia of the 2nd Amendment and the militia of Art 1 are the same entity, then the militia and the people are not synonymous like so many of us have been led to believe.

During the Revolutionary war "militia" and "army regulars" were distinct from each other in the language of the time.

The Federal gov according to the United States Code certainly used to see the Unorganized Militia and "the people" as one and the same per Title 10, Sections 311 and 312. Although I can only find info to the effect that Title 10 USC Sections 311 and 312 were re-numbered 246 and 247, searching Title 10 now I can only find what appears to be an abbreviated form of Sections 246 and 247 compared to the former 311 and 312 on Cornell's Law website. Previously which was very comprehensive when I last viewed it. There was a change in content in 1993 regarding the "Clarification of female members in the National Guard as members of the Militia" - See;

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=107&page=1656

There is a reference to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress but it is a mile long and no way I can see to search it for keywords only - See;

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ328/html/PLAW-114publ328.htm

But prior to any changes to Sections 311 and 312 the criteria for the Unorganized Militia was very broad indeed and distinct from the Army Reserves and or National Guard or Organized Militia..

 

[grampajack]

During the Revolutionary war "militia" and "army regulars" were distinct from each other in the language of the time.

The Federal gov according to the United States Code certainly used to see the Unorganized Militia and "the people" as one and the same per Title 10, Sections 311 and 312. Although I can only find info to the effect that Title 10 USC Sections 311 and 312 were re-numbered 246 and 247, searching Title 10 now I can only find what appears to be an abbreviated form of Sections 246 and 247 compared to the former 311 and 312 on Cornell's Law website. Previously which was very comprehensive when I last viewed it. There was a change in content in 1993 regarding the "Clarification of female members in the National Guard as members of the Militia" - See;

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=107&page=1656

There is a reference to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Congress but it is a mile long and no way I can see to search it for keywords only - See;

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ328/html/PLAW-114publ328.htm

But prior to any changes to Sections 311 and 312 the criteria for the Unorganized Militia was very broad indeed and distinct from the Army Reserves and or National Guard or Organized Militia..

Did you try ctrl f?

 

[RPRNY]

Whatever you think of the Supreme Court ruling in Heller, the majority opinion was objectively incorrect in asserting that there are two clauses in the Second Amendment. The amendment doesn't even have two verbs. (In case you're wondering, "being" on its own like that is a participle.)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Everybody can express an opinion thanks to the First Amendment. Again, were the prefatory clause to read "The price of tea in China being variable," it would have no impact on the operative clause, which is the only part of the sentence that causes anything to be done, or, in this case, not to be done. That is a matter of grammar rather than subsequent interpretation by the Court.

The OP's query was whether an argument that an armed populace as a deterrent to misuse of the coercive power of a standing army was more likely covered by the Second Amendment than that an armed populace was to counteract the militia. Boom Boom in #8 does rather a good job of pointing out that the militia referenced in the Second Amendment was contextually viewed as a deterrent to potential abuse of a standing army. There is, as far as I can tell, no argument to be made that there was consideration of the individual against the militia. There is however an interesting Bedouin saying in Arabic that is relevant: "I and the Arabs against the foreigners. I and my tribe against the Arabs. I and my family against my tribe. I against my brother." Sort of sums things up neatly.