Well, as I said, there's no way of knowing exactly what the authors were thinking, but here's a scenario:
We've just defeated England. We're ecstatic and arrogant about our resounding victory over such a major power since we're so little and un-powerful. Now that we've defeated them and they've turned tail and run, we have to govern all these people in our new country. If I'm Ben Franklin, James Madison, et al, I'm thinking, how can we ensure that we won't have to fight another war like this any time soon, make sure the people are protected from the savages, and make sure none of those dumbass Puritans (or whomever) get it in their head that they can run this place better than us? We'll give them the right to have their guns-so they don't get killed by Indians, but we should clarify that we are essentially in charge and can call on them to fight for us when and if we need them to.
Maybe a little farfetched, but who knows. I still think they had Native Americans in mind more than the British.
Here's a question. Is it not also the 2nd amendment that allows for an instatement of the draft? There's no doubt in my mind that they intended the militia to be regulated by the government.
Originally Posted by Hydroholic
thats true, but its still open to individual beliefs on just what a "well regulated militia" is....regulated by what? by whom? by what ideology?
and I would disagree...england was far more of a threat to american ideologies at that time than native tribes.