COMMENT: The video points out the point Alexander Hamilton made in Federalist 29 about civilian militias: It's impossible to have the whole of the civilian population trained and disciplined for military action:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."Much of the answer to this would be to have these armed civilians acting in supportive roles--logistically as drivers and such; tactically as set-position fire support rather than affirmatively assaulting ("sturm-ing"). American civilians would have to learn to set aside having watched too many "A-Team" reruns and accept a subdued role.
Furthermore, James Madison noted the role of local--that is, STATE--governments in making the general militia--the armed citizenry--effective. Referring to a resistance against domestic tyranny, but militarily applicable to resisting foreign invasion, he said in Federalist 46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Currently, the American Second Amendment facilitates civilians having arms, but there is a lack of coordination in this--e,g., too many calibers and weapon types--and too few people recognize the role the Founding Fathers saw for State GOVERNMENT in the 2A civilian Militia. Americans would need to subordinate personal preferences and learn to accept authority and direction. 2A is a private right, and people have a right to private self-defense. But in the true militia context, it's about the community. The individual would, as in the uniformed military, have to be subordinated.
REPLY FROM @wayne antoniazzi: All of the above you mentioned led to the American Milita Act of 1793, mostly written by Baron von Steuben and signed into law by President George Washington. Steuben took as inspiration the Swiss model and saw no reason it couldn't work here.
Briefly, it spells out recruiting, training, organization, and the arms meant to be carried by militamen who were to be the whole of able-bodied men (with certain exceptions) from the ages of (I think, I'd have to check again) 18 to 48. The arms were to be of the same configuration and caliber of the US Army's. It also made provision for artillery and cavalry units.
A very well thought-out program, however it was never really enforced.
Also, remember Hamilton's argument wasn't so much against a citizen militia as it was FOR a strong professional standing army, which many in the Constitutional Convention and subsequent Congress were very suspicious of.
MY REPLY: @wayne antoniazzi Yet too many 2A supporters won't even consider government involvement in anything 2A. They talk of it referring to PRIVATE militias and a PRIVATE resistance to federal tyranny.
John Adams, on the other hand, explained:
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
----
@wayne antoniazzi And yes, Hamilton's statement was an "in addition to," not "instead of." He recognizes general armament of the citizenry and nation several times.
