2
2
0
interesting read.....lines of title 10 and 32 blur a little and a commentary on the second amendment.
Why The National Guard Is Not A Militia | RedState
Posted from redstate.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
0
0
0
Wrong, the National Guard is the ORGANIZED MILITIA. This isn't really hard, the exact LEGAL definition of the militia, which is what counts in this case, follows:
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Two points of interest here. Firstly is that if one accounts for changes to Federal law, either by legislative or judicial action, barring discrimination based on physical disability, gender and age, the unorganized militia is ANY legal resident of the United States over 17 years of age not barred from keeping and bearing arms by felony conviction or other legal reason. Second, its always worth pointing to the legal definition of the militia to the left and then pointing out the cognitive dissonance inherent in saying that the 2nd Amendment is for the military then complaining about classes of weapons being 'too militaristic.'
10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Two points of interest here. Firstly is that if one accounts for changes to Federal law, either by legislative or judicial action, barring discrimination based on physical disability, gender and age, the unorganized militia is ANY legal resident of the United States over 17 years of age not barred from keeping and bearing arms by felony conviction or other legal reason. Second, its always worth pointing to the legal definition of the militia to the left and then pointing out the cognitive dissonance inherent in saying that the 2nd Amendment is for the military then complaining about classes of weapons being 'too militaristic.'
(0)
(0)
CMSgt Mike Esser
I don't disagree, I think the article is interesting. I joined the Guard because of its title 32 mission set.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
More revisionist history from the right. This article ignores the fact that the National Guard traces it's lineage back to the very same militias that fought the Revolution. Those militias were not autonomous, but fought along side, and under the control of, Federal troops. The militias during the Revolution, and again in the Civil War, were seen as auxiliary troops, to be held in reserve until needed, and then under strict Federal control.
Now let's get to the truly inflammatory part. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in any supporting documents, that indicate the 2nd Amendment exists solely so the individual citizen can protect himself against a "tyrannical" government. There have been many theories bounced around as to why the 2nd Amendment was written, including providing arms to posses for the chase and capture of slaves, but the "tyrannical" government argument is the most absurd.
No, the National Guard is no longer the militia that existed during the first hundred years of our county's history. The National Guard is the ultimate expression of those early militias, that can not be denied.
Now let's get to the truly inflammatory part. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in any supporting documents, that indicate the 2nd Amendment exists solely so the individual citizen can protect himself against a "tyrannical" government. There have been many theories bounced around as to why the 2nd Amendment was written, including providing arms to posses for the chase and capture of slaves, but the "tyrannical" government argument is the most absurd.
No, the National Guard is no longer the militia that existed during the first hundred years of our county's history. The National Guard is the ultimate expression of those early militias, that can not be denied.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Also, it may or may not be 'inflammatory' but is definitely insulting to even the lowest level of intelligence to think that the Founders, having watched their own government as loyal British citizens, turn to tyranny, would never conceive of government turning to tyranny. It is equally absurd to believe that the Founders, having successfully led an armed, citizen revolution against the most economically and militarily powerful nation on earth at the time, would view the idea of an armed citizenry as a deterrent against or solution to domestic tyranny as foolish.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
1LT Aaron Barr - The Founders knew they could not win the war against Britain by themselves. In fact, they almost lost the war. They actively courted help from other countries, especially the French. It was this help that gave the Colonials the ability to win the war. They knew that an untrained militia was no match to trained government forces. The phrase "well regulated", is the kicker. The Founders knew that "well regulated" meant government training and regulation, and not just a bunch of guys getting together for target practice.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
That might be true but the Founders weren't really handing out guns either; the Patriots who rallied to them and the cause of Freedom brought their own arms with them. Thus, this is not really a chicken and egg argument; an armed populace is a prerequisite to forming a militia.
One other point that I forgot; it's worth looking at the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia as the principle authors of these, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson respectively, were also amongst the chief authors of the Federal Constitution. All three of these states also included a right to keep and bear arms and Pennsylvania's explicitly listed defense of self as a justification.
One other point that I forgot; it's worth looking at the state constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia as the principle authors of these, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson respectively, were also amongst the chief authors of the Federal Constitution. All three of these states also included a right to keep and bear arms and Pennsylvania's explicitly listed defense of self as a justification.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
The Federal government could not afford to issue weapons, or any other equipment. The militias needed to provide all their own stuff, so, yes, an armed populace was necessary to an armed militia.
You will never see, or hear, me argue that one does not have a right to self defense, or that one does not have a right to own a gun to provide that self defense. However, I soundly reject the "tyrannical government" argument as a reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
You will never see, or hear, me argue that one does not have a right to self defense, or that one does not have a right to own a gun to provide that self defense. However, I soundly reject the "tyrannical government" argument as a reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google