03-25-2020, 08:17 AM
LRRPF52 Wrote:Your argument is based on the premise that federalizing the State Guards is in congruence with the right of the people to keep and bear arms...No, my argument is based on the premise that because the National Guard assumed the function of the State militias established by the Founders, and because National Guard members are not required to provide their own weapons, the Founders' intent in writing the 2A has been rendered irrelevant.
LRRPF52 Wrote:When State Guard units were converted from defending the States to US Federal standing Army reserve components forces, able to be called to duty by executive order of the President, they ceased to fulfill any legal definition of the local militia.a. The Federal government has always had the power to call up State militias for use in the service of the United States. (See Article I, Section 8.)
b. There is no legal definition of "local militia" -- at least I could not find one -- but there most assuredly is a legal definition of "militia" that covers the National Guard. (See 10 US Code ยง246.)
LRRPF52 Wrote:Therefore, anyone with basic reasoning and critical analysis can plainly see that the people were left for themselves to act in the original capacity of a militia.Nonsense.
1. The National Guard is used to perform all of the functions that the original State militias did.
2. The State militias established by the Founders were official military forces under control of the States, and subject to Federal control. A bunch of private citizens with guns does not constitute a State militia as conceived by the Founders.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Especially in a time like this, where National Guard units are being called to serve in a Federal capacity, and local law enforcement is openly stating that they will not respond to many felonious crimes in one of the biggest metro areas of Texas, the role of the 2A in maintaining order by deterrence shines for itself.AFAIK, the 2A has never "maintained order" or deterred anyone from doing anything. The 2A has not deterred criminals from committing felonious acts, and it has not deterred government from infringing on the RKBA.
LRRPF52 Wrote:It's a very gymnastic exercise to attempt when trying to make an argument that the Bill of Rights is not speaking about the rights of the people...I did not make such an argument. You and grayfox seem to be erroneously reading something into my post that I did not write.
LRRPF52 Wrote:We're off to a derail once again...:confused: I addressed topics which you yourself devoted well over 50% of the OP to: The intent of the 2A, and various gun laws.