Such expansion did NOT occur, the real expansion was after St Clairs defeat in 1791.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Clair's_Defeat
Washington had always said he needed a small regular army of about 15,000 men, to be supported and reinforced by the Militia as needed. After St Clair's Defeat Congress finally agreed to Washington's suggestion and authorized a 15,000 man army. This would be the size of the Regular US Army till after the Spanish American War in 1898. The Militia was the main defense unit of the US till that time, the Regular Army was viewed as the hammer that hit the Anvil of the Militia when the US was attacked (I.e. any enemy would be caught between the two).
Now at the time of the Revolution till after the War of 1812, the best Militia in the US (And probably the world) was the New England Militia. It was drove the British back to Boston after the Battle of Concord and Lexington and hemmed in the British Forces till the British vacated Boston in early 1776. It was the main force that supplied troops to Washington till and through his retreat across New Jersey (after Losing New York City) in the Fall of 1776. It reformed in fall of 1777 to defeat the British at the Battle of Saratoga (Supported by the New York State Militia).
http://battle1777.saratoga.org/
The New England Militia was almost as good as Regular troops. The problem was the rest of the US Militia during the Revolution was no where as good. The further south you went, the Militia as a fighting force went down hill. The reason for this was slavery, Militia duty was also tied in with the Sheriff's Patrol. In the North, with very few slaves, the Sheriff's patrol, a night time duty to make sure no one with evil intention were on the roads after night fall, was rarely done. The reason was simple, no one really cared if someone was using the roads at night. Thus military training as a Militia Unit (to train to fight the French and the Indians before 1763 and then the Indians after 1763 AND the British after 1774 was the main function of the New England Militia).
On the other hand, in the South the Sheriff's patrol main job was to make sure the slaves were NOT planning a slave revolt or trying to escape. Thus the Sheriff's Patrol part of being a member of the Militia was more important then actual military training.
New York tend to be closer to the New England Militia, but not as good (In the war of 1812, the New York Militia refused to cross into Canada after helping the Regular US Army defeat a British raid in Western New York, they were there to defend New York State NOT to invade Canada thus refused to go). Pennsylvania had no Militia from its founding by William Penn in 1688 to the Colonial election of 1756 where the Quakers lost control of the Colony to the Presbyterian, who were on the frontier getting killed by the Natives and the French (The Presbyterian were mostly Scot-Irish who purchased land from the Quakers who had stolen it from the Native in the "Long Walk", that was the problem for the Quakers, they wanted "peace" and no army, but wanted land and money. By 1756 it was clear that was no longer possible thus they lost the election that year and Pennsylvania transformed its "Associations" into Militia unit.
In 1745 Benjamin Franklin and other Philadelphia citizens had asked the Colonial Assembly for permission to build a fort south of Philadelphia to defend Philadelphia from any French Naval Attacks (Due to the fear of Hurricanes, both the French and British Fleets left the Caribbean during the Summer months, the French to Quebec, the British to Charleston and New York, came October both fleets went back south,. thus the French Fleet went by Philadelphia twice a year during peace time AND war time). When the Quakers said, not Ben Franklin decided to have the Citizens of Philadelphia do it themselves WITHOUT permission and as private citizens in the form of a private association. When the Native Americans started to hit the colonial outposts of Pennsylvania, Franklin told the frontiersmen to do the same, and they did. "Militia" units NOT organized by any government, colonial, state or Federal. The term Association was used for such pick up units as late as the US civil war, through mostly north of the Mason-Dixon Line and north of the Slave states (Slave States self organized units tend to call themselves "regulators" following the North Carolina Regulators of the 1770s, Billy the Kid was a member of one of the last unit to call themselves "Regulators" in the 1880s.
I bring these two terms up, "Associations" and "Regulators", for both were would be called militia units today, even through both did NOT have any support or authority from any state. "Regulators" had a much worse reputations then "Associates" but the underlying concept was the same for both AND BOTH WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
At the same time, the Revolution had been fought and it was found that supply was almost as important as the troops themselves. The US started out with British Brown Besses (or copies of Brown Besses) but after the French intervention the US main arm was the French Musket of 1763 (Which the US then put into production for its own use and was the weapon whose ammunition is mentioned in the Militia act of 1792). In the Constitution, due to how the Revolution was fought, it was believed that greater control over HOW the Militia was formed would ease supply concerns. Thus the Control of the Militia was made a FEDERAL DUTY under the US Constitution.
When the Second Amendment was passed, one of the attack on the Constitution was what would happen to the Militia if the Congress decided NOT to fund the Militia? Under the Constitution, as proposed, the states had no duty as to the militia except to name the officers of the Militia units (And Pennsylvania failure to have a standing army or a Militia was also known to the authors of the Constitution). The Second was adopted to address this concern AND AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVE THE ABILITY OF CONGRESS TO SET UP THE MILITIA AS CONGRESS SEE BEST. Note these two concept can be in conflict. Thus the wording of the Second amendment, it preserve the power of Congress to set up the Militia as Congress sees fit BUT also permits the states AND the people themselves to set up the Militia or Militia Units if Congress does NOT. To do the later, people must have access to militia level weapons and thus the wording of the Second.
In my opinion, the second permits people to own automatic assault weapons. for that is the musket of today, it is the weapon people would need if they were needed as a militia unit. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that to be the case, for the simple reason the Right wing does not really want to people to have access to modern military weapons. This has been true since the end of WWI and the West Virginia Coal War (In the war. 20,000 miners marched on Mingo West Virginia to hang the Sheriff of that town, after he had disarmed Marshall Sid Hatfield so it would be easier for Mine Detectives to shoot him down dead on the Court house steps).
The West Virginia Coal war of 1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Coal_Wars
Battle of Blair Mountain (The comment on this battle was that if a company of 100 infantrymen had shown up on either side, they would have won the battle, for what ever side they supported. Instead you had 20,000 miners shooting at 2-5,00o police, sheriff;'s deputies, private detectives and any other thug the Sheriff of Mingo could pay for). Had a company of Infantry appeared, it would have fought through the lines of the other side, the Militia of miners or thugs would have poured through destroying the other side. It is the only time Air planes have dropped bombs onto "Rioter"s in US History (Through the Philadelphia Police did drop an bomb onto the MOVE headquarters in 1985).
Battle of Blair Mountain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
Battle of Matewan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan_Massacre
MOVE bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
In many ways the battle of Blair Mountain shows the limitation of Militia, good in defense, good for a short term emergency, lousy on the attack (Through can assist in such an attack) but the Militia is used, you have popular support and often in most long term struggles that is 90% of the war effort (The Unions lost in 1921, but that help set up for them to win in the 1930s). In fact the battle of Blair Mountain was noted for its lack of infantry AND THAT A COMPANY OF INFANTRY WOULD HAVE WON THE BATTLE FOR THE STRIKERS. Due to this observation (and reports that union leaders were forming such companies AND what was happening in Russia, Germany and the rest of the western world at that time period) that the first laws in the US BANNING military training were passed (i.e. to make such no such infantry company of pro-union infantry could exist).
Please note, In the coal war of 1921 (Like the shooting that occurred in the 1877 General Strike and the 1892 Homestead Strike) Rifles were the weapon of choice, not pistols. This period also show the first series of laws in regards to carrying handguns (Some Southern States had such laws post Civil War, New York law predates WWI but most states it is 1919-1925 when such laws are adopted). The laws as to pistols seems to be aimed at anarchists not union member, on the other hand the laws as to military training seems to be aimed at union members, In the 1930s the ban was extended to automatic weapons, but again more to deal with the fears of union members getting their hands on BARs (Browning Automatic Rifles) not criminals getting their hands on Thompson sub machine guns.
Sorry about getting into the union fights of the 1919-1924 period, but it was really the last time you had real serious internal dissent when BOTH sides were armed AND the side being oppressed had massive popular support (Yes, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s had support, but NOT the support the unions had in 1919-1924 NOR was the Civil War suppressed to the level of the labor was between 1919 and 1924). It shows the militia in action on the side of the Union, and its weaknesses in that it can only last a very short time in the heat of battle (but long term in the sense of support). Most unions were suppressed in the period 1919 to 1930, but often with massive support at the start, then rapid drop off in support, but then a solid base of support till victory was achieved.
It also shows the uselessness of Pistol, used by anarchists (and the police) and this use of pistols generally resulted in harm to the workers. The founding father knew that long arms were military useful while pistols were military useless in 1792 (From experience in the Revolution) when the Bill of Rights was written, and thus why the Second is worded the way it is. I
n my opinion pistols can be banned as NOT being effective militia weapons. AK-47s and AR-15s can NOT be banned for there ARE effective Militia Weapons (But Congress CAN decide that people should buy AR-15s for they are clones of the US army M16 instead of the AK-47 to keep resupply of ammunition and spare parts to a minimum, the exception would be if the AR-15 price is $1000 a piece while the AK-47 is only $200, then forcing people to buy a to expensive a weapon a denial of the right under the Second? Could be but it is a closer call then just AR-15 vs AK-47).
Please note the US Supreme Court has NOT rejected the above, but has also refused to even address the above, it wants people to have pistols, not assault rifles for the simple reason pistols are useless in any revolution but assault rifles are the muskets of today. Militia needs muskets not pistols, and the muskets of today are the AR-15 and the AK-47.
= new reply since forum marked as read
