[robertpaulsen]

The War of 1812 demonstrated the weakness of the Militia system -- most "militia" members showed up with no weapons or weapons that had fallen into disrepair.

I'm curious. What if a state decided they would maintain the citizen's arms and keep them in an armory to ensure their availability when needed? What if the state decided to provide the arms and keep them secure until needed?

How would that violate the second amendment?

[mrsmith]

A state can't violate the second amendment- it does not apply to the states except as it's considered a privelege or immunity under the 14th amendment.
The example you gave clearly violates the individual right if the second is incorporated as it was meant to apply to the feds so I don't see your point.

Yes, the militia was inferior. That was well known even before 1812.
It was also well known that a standing army has certain drawbacks too,