Awareness
Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The militia, as stated in the second amendment still exists, whether the anti gun people want to admit it or not.
And I am not referring to the militias you read about in the news.
And I am not referring to the National Guard, which can be put under federal control by decree of the President.
Under the law, a state or local militia cannot be co-opted into National service EXCEPT by the consent of the state or territory governor.
A state and local militia is not funded by the Federal government in any way shape or form, again this eliminates the national guard.
You're talking about State Defense Forces.
The National Guard is the militia of each State and Territory of the United States and operates under each state or territorial authority (usually a governer). The Militia Act of 1903 provided federal funds for National Guard training and equipment and in exchange allowed for the federalisation of the National Guard. Specifically the President of the United States was empowered to call up the National Guard for up to nine months to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws.
Now, the National Guard of the United States is the federalised version of these forces including any Naval Militia a state may possess. So while each state may have an Army National Guard and/or an Air National Guard, they (and any Naval Militias) serve under the governor, except when the President decrees otherwise. When you enlist in the National Guard, you also have to enlist in the National Guard of the United States.
The Militia of the United States (which is what the second amendment refers to) is essentially these federalised forces (collectively known as the organised militia) and all otherwise able-bodied men between 17 and 45 (women, notably have zero responsibility in this instance) who are citizens or would-be citizens of the United States (known as the unorganised militia).
The Militia of the United States is what the second amendment refers to. The main Constitutional misinterpretation which has allowed the proliferation of handguns is the failure to realise that "the people" is a collective noun. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms" refers to the people of the United States as a collective entity. If unrestrained gun ownership had been intended the Constitution would have been written as, "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In other words, the founding fathers fully intended that armed state militias be an intrinsic part of the people's defense against both foreign and domestic enemies and the Constitution was written to ensure the federal government could not reserve that power for itself. The second amendment is part of a delicate balancing act of rights between the Federal government and the States. It's not an assertion of the an individual's right to a gun, it's an assertion of the right of the States to have their own armed militias, a right the Federal Government may not infringe upon.
Contrary interpretations are fucking poppycock.
As for State Defense Forces, well only 22 States have active forces and some of them are fucking useless with political appointments being made by governors doing favours for donors and so on. The States have a statutory right to train and maintain such forces, but the fact is without military discipline and training methods, most of them are pretty crap. They are not, in any way, useful in an argument about the second amendment.
_____________________________
Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.
|
Trump hints at the assassination of Hilary - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread