A letter concerning ran Monday concerning a hypothetical Berkshire militia. This letter got me thinking. What if there was such a voluntary force of say 100 young men and women who were exercising their Second Amendment rights? This force would be no match for the U.S. military, but there probably is enough wild-open spaces up on the mountains for a well-armed militia to drill. I assume the members would maintain their own weapons and equipment, vote on when and where to drill, and maybe even elect a militia leader named Washington. It would require a high level of physical fitness and responsibility to work properly and it would have to accept only men with clean records.
Furthermore, in a land of freedom, it would have to carefully regulate itself. Maybe there could be four or five of these citizen soldier groups in each state. That would mean nearly 200 or more independent groups! I bet only 1/4 of the population would be willing to support such an entity.
On the opposite side of the debate, while we are fantasizing, we could also imagine a scenario where the government registers all guns and eventually outlaws them. What a safe land that would be. Of course, there could be an intermediary step where the owners of guns could store them in a government approved storage facility. We could then have special service [SS] inspectors go house to house to enforce these reasonable steps and to check on all related safety matters.
I wonder if either one of these approaches has been tried before and, if so, I wonder which one worked out better for the citizens? Let us all go and check in a history book. Could our actions inadvertently make history repeat? Nothing is perfect in this world, but I bet there is a solid historical basis for judging which policy had the better outcome.