Well no, not so. It has never been the government who was responsible for the Militia being 'well equipped', it has always been the responsibility of the Patriot to incur those expenses and to equip himself accordingly.
And there was no 'Army' per se, that's the thing really, America did not keep a large standing army, Militias were that force which would be called upon while an Army was raised. Prior to WWI we simply did not have much Army, not by European or world standards.
If you study the various Militia Acts and regulations going back to the mid 1700s the theme has been consistently one of requiring the individual to 'be well regulated', with that term meaning something akin to 'supplied with adequate musket/rifle and powder and lead and reasonably well trained or knowledgeable of his duty'. In many cases the wordings were such as to delineate precisely what that equipment was to be; officers with swords and pistols, enlisted ranks with rifles/muskets, 'X' amount of powder/lead, several day's provisions and sturdy shoots/boots, and no government funds were involved. The individual had to have the necessary items.
You can research that all yourself, maybe start with the militia act of 1903 and from there you can trace the lineage back and follow it forward to modern times.
I’m going to read into it more out of curiosity lol. I’m honestly just trolling like the left does to spin things in their favor. We could all get a weekly supply crate given how the 2nd amendment is written.
Well no, not so. It has never been the government who was responsible for the Militia being 'well equipped', it has always been the responsibility of the Patriot to incur those expenses and to equip himself accordingly.
And there was no 'Army' per se, that's the thing really, America did not keep a large standing army, Militias were that force which would be called upon while an Army was raised. Prior to WWI we simply did not have much Army, not by European or world standards.
http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cf3334eeda0d03a8167ff0c4a539cc7e
If you study the various Militia Acts and regulations going back to the mid 1700s the theme has been consistently one of requiring the individual to 'be well regulated', with that term meaning something akin to 'supplied with adequate musket/rifle and powder and lead and reasonably well trained or knowledgeable of his duty'. In many cases the wordings were such as to delineate precisely what that equipment was to be; officers with swords and pistols, enlisted ranks with rifles/muskets, 'X' amount of powder/lead, several day's provisions and sturdy shoots/boots, and no government funds were involved. The individual had to have the necessary items.
You can research that all yourself, maybe start with the militia act of 1903 and from there you can trace the lineage back and follow it forward to modern times.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/57th-congress/session-2/c57s2ch196.pdf
I’m going to read into it more out of curiosity lol. I’m honestly just trolling like the left does to spin things in their favor. We could all get a weekly supply crate given how the 2nd amendment is written.