Reply #68: That does not make sense.

[gorfle]

Hamilton, in Federalist #29 states the reason for a "well regulated militia" is that the US cannot afford to have a standing army.

If the states could collectively all afford to raise their own armies, surely they could have collectively raised a single army.

The entire premise of our founders was a system of checks and balances. This is true through the branches of government, and I firmly believe was their intent militarily as well.

For example, Hamilton says early on in Federalist 29:

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions."

Clearly Hamilton believes that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty", and are "unfriendly institutions", which is why state-controlled militias were seen as preferable. It's not about monetary cost.