Where We Should Draw The Line On Outlawing Trans Bathrooms
It’s an odd sort of punishment to force someone to behave a certain way so you can give them more money.Read More »
The political Left in America is trying to change 200 years of written history by saying that the right to bear arms is so that citizens can hunt for food (false) and be a member of a “militia” called the National Guard (also false). These arguments are simply intended to support restrictions on private gun ownership and the ultimate leftist goal of total confiscation of private firearms. History proves that this is the first step leftists and tyrants take to repeal the rule of law and institute totalitarianism. But the National Guard is not a militia and here’s why.
American colonial militia consisted of volunteer units with their own chosen leaders that formed in times of need and disbanded when the threat subsided. The earliest colonial militia mustered in Salem, Massachusetts on December 13, 1636 and continued to muster and disband throughout the colonial period. During the Revolutionary War, local militias under their own leadership continuously harassed British troops and disrupted their supply chain to weaken them prior to battles with Colonial regular military forces.
Following the war for independence, the founders feared that the new federal government might become as tyrannical as that which had just been defeated on the battlefield. The 2nd Amendment – from all accounts written by those who framed and signed the Constitution – was specifically intended to provide a means for the People to defend themselves against a rogue federal government. Leftists argue that the National Guard is a militia, therefore the 2nd Amendment only allows National Guard units to bear arms. This is obviously a false interpretation for this simple reason: all rights described in the “Bill of Rights” apply specifically and solely to the People, not to the government or any component of it. If the framers wanted to specify that government-controlled entities could be armed, they would have included language to that effect elsewhere in the Constitution. That the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is in the Bill Of Rights is confirmation that it is an individual right of each citizen, just as much as all the other rights described in the first 10 amendments.
Founded in 1916, National Guard units are organized under the control of each individual state with the governor as command-in-chief and an adjutant general as military commander. Guard units have two missions: to support their local communities during emergencies and natural disasters and to supplement federal forces in war-fighting. Given the complexity of modern weapons and tactics, the preponderance of Guard training is focused on the federal mission. Accordingly, state military forces rely on the federal government for funding and equipment to maintain military readiness. This reliance, coupled with the fact that the President has the authority to place Guard units under federal control at any time, makes the Guard a seamless extension of the federal military. This lack of independence disqualifies the Guard from being a militia.
A militia is an independent force under its own leadership that is formed by Constitutional state and local governments and the People. The right to form a militia and defend themselves from a tyrannical and un-Constitutional federal government remains with the states and the People as expressed in the 2nd Amendment, not with the federal military asset that is the National Guard. The argument that the National Guard is a militia is completely unsupported and false. Only the states and the People can form and control an independent militia and their right to do so is expressly protected in the Constitution. The only purpose for denying the People this right would be the intent to deny the People all their rights.