Final answer:
Federalists supported a regulated and robust federal militia for national defense and law enforcement, while Anti-Federalists favored localized militias to prevent tyranny and protect citizens' rights without giving excessive power to the central government.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists had divergent views on the regulating and raising of a militia. The Federalists, who supported a strong central government, believed in the necessity of a regulated, potentially sizeable standing army, under federal control, to ensure national security and uphold laws. They held that a strong centralized authority was essential for the country’s defense and to protect individual freedoms. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists feared that a strong central government could overpower state authority and potentially lead to a tyrannical usurpation of power. They worried that the central government would use its military powers to enforce oppressive laws and taxes, similar to how the British government had once dealt with the colonies. Thus, Anti-Federalists advocated for a more localized militia, under state control, as a means to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens without conferring excessive power upon the national government.