As we wrestle against the Satanic Forces of Globalism, we need to realize that our only friend in this struggle is the Constitution of the United States. The Founders recognized the threat of invasion from a foreign foe and sought to maintain an armed populace for just such an event. In the words of Alexander Hamilton:
"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." (Source)
It is clear that Hamilton saw the benefits of a well-armed populace coming to the need of its country during times of National Crisis. In the event of foreign invasion, it only makes sense that such a militia would join forces with under the leadership of the Executive to protect our lands.
However, the Founders were not fools. They feared that such a militia could be used to take away freedoms as well as preserve them. They wanted the States to appoint officers and provide training. This was proposed with the understanding that no man would act the interests of his own State or locality.
"Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. 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. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter." (Ibid)
Clearly what the Founders feared was a military coup. The militia was to act as a "counter-balance" to a National Standing Army. One look at history and it can be seen that this fear was fully justified. From Sulla through Caesar we can see that the greatest enemy to Freedom is a National Army falling into the hands of a despot or tyrant. A well-regulated militia is designed to protect the Freedoms we enjoy against these types of power-lusting individuals.
"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." (ibid)
In other words, our greatest defense against tyranny is a well-armed populace that can be organized by the state they reside in, into a militia, as the case may require. Every Patriot should own both guns and ammunition. Every state militia should be on parity with our National army if a balance is to be achieved. It is illogical to assume that a well-regulated militia, armed with knives and forks, could defend itself against a National Army with all the latest military technology.
Every State Legislature should be allocating money for a "well-regulated" militia. Every Governor should take it as his duty to make sure that this militia is well-trained, well equipped and well provisioned in the event of foreign invasion, or to resist the military incursions of a National Tyrant. This is what the Founder's intended.
"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined entrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?
Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs." (ibid.)