They aren't regulated at all; they do as they please.
Disdain for the rule of law is pretty much a universal requirement for membership in these militias.
Essential they are groups of angry, armed men with a grudge against government, and various minorities.
It became obvious on January 6th that they are more like terrorist gangs than anything else.

miltia" part. The intent may well have been in support of quelling slave or any worker uprisings and understandable the South would have been a strong advocate for that. But it was also clear by the well regulated militia part, that this was not meant to be everybody freewheeling with their firearms as they may please. They were to be in a supervised and trained militia. Well regulated implies officers and rules, which if disobeyed would have consequences. Almost all current takes on the Second Amendment just completely ignore that key element clearly stated in the Constitution.

to work with the federal government. A good example was the Whiskey rebellion in Pa.

Whiskey Rebellion

noun U.S. History.
a revolt of settlers in western Pennsylvania in 1794 against a federal excise tax on whiskey: suppressed by militia called out by President George Washington to establish the authority of the federal government.

so the alternative was organized militias that could be called up if needed. But the point is that they were supposed to be organized, official militias and not bands of assholes who think they're an army. We now have actual military forces and don't need soldier wannabes with more guns than brains.

Last edited Sun Jun 20, 2021, 06:02 AM - Edit history (1)

She tries to spin it as though the southern states were trying to keep their guns (leaving the reader with the impression that it was some sort of compromise with the northern states)

That’s entirely untrue. Most of the northern states already included something similar to 2A in their state constitutions (often explicitly including self defense and not limiting the right to any “militia”).

The north was extensively concerned about Indian "raids.".
I suspect that you can find a wide variety of interests in the 2nd at the time. I've always seen it as the "Concord and Lexington Memorial Amendment".

Politicians everywhere make deals. Clearly the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights were ratified by the required three quarters (11 of 14) of the states. Virginia was the eleventh. What began as Article Five in 1789 was ratified by Northern states. I don't really know the history but I notice that Georgia was not among the first eleven states to ratify.

I'm sure the legislators in every state had their own reasons and state's interests in mind for doing as they did. Less than half of those first eleven states were in the South.