Guns Required by Militia Act of 1792

Isn't is interesting that gun were required by the Militia Act of 1792? The Founders were afraid of standing armies and therefore wanted every able bodied man to have the weaponry necessary to defend the young country and to be part of the Militia.  We don't have Militias today, however, the question is, shouldn't we?

We see the danger that standing armies have done. We continually need to find new "enemies" so that the troops can be used and the military equipment expended.  Should we? Could we defend ourselves from invaders if we did not have a military? Were the Founders right?

These are questions that we are thinking about. We don't have the answers because we see lots of pros and cons on both sides. 

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom

A.              Militia Act of 1792

              Sec. 1.  Be it enacted . . .  That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .  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. .