The National Guard Is
Not The Militia -
Armed Citizens Are!
By Ted Lang
©. 2005 All Rights Reserved
It is fundamental common sense that no encyclical presenting a rule of law of, by and for the people of a nation, when conveying upon its chosen and created government so established, to create also within that same document via amendment, instruction to its standing armed forces as regards the necessity of military discipline within its ranks, especially when such a standing armed force is strictly forbidden by that very same document.
The military organization of any nation requires only a bare minimum of codified authorization and legitimization to be legally established; beyond that, military organizations develop their own internal rules and regulations for discipline independently and outside the executive, legislative and judicial functions that normally constitute government powers.
That section of the United States Constitution that prohibits a "standing army" is really not a prohibition, but a funding limitation enforced by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12: "[The Congress shall have the power] "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
By limiting funding in terms of two year intervals, a standing army is made impossible. It was the desire of the Founders to prevent the buildup of a permanent army on land. Instead, since the Continental Army, a ragtag bunch of poorly equipped rogues, drunks, farmers, unemployed and unskilled footloose "irregulars," were able to defeat the finely- uniformed, disciplined and well-equipped army of King George III, it was always the opinion of the Founders that an armed people could "take care of themselves."
As long as Americans stayed at home, took care of their farms, their mines, their shops, and in general, minded their own business, all that was required to keep US safe and secure was John Adams' "wooden wall" [the Navy]. Proof of the pudding is Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 13: "[The Congress shall have the power] "to provide and maintain a Navy." No restrictions as regards funding are mentioned. The Founders feared a standing army with weapons on land, where they could be used the same way King George III used his Army. When disagreements heated up, the British sent their army to Lexington and Concord to seize guns and ammunition [gun control] in order to disarm the American colonists.
Now when looking at the Second Amendment, and employing fundamental common sense to it, it suddenly becomes quite easy to understand:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why would a document establishing the rule of law of the people, a document whose preamble begins, "We the People," exclude themselves from having the same firepower as King George's army? Why mention a "Militia" if you rely upon a standing army?
With respect to the term "well-regulated," this refers to the responsibilities of the joint and several states, and describes those responsibilities in Paragraph 16: "[The Congress shall have the power] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Why would Congress have to develop a code for discipline in the ranks? Obviously, because a militia is composed of individual citizens, even if they don't own any firearms!
Hence, a militia is not an army; it is an unorganized, undisciplined group of civilians. And it doesn't have codes of military rules and regulations; if it did, it would be a military unit like the Army National Guard, which can and does get called up very frequently by the president, and not the governor of the unit's home state.
Clearly, the responsibility for maintaining a free state, meaning citizens with protected individual freedoms, rest upon the citizens themselves, and this is assured when individual citizens own and carry[bear] guns. To offer that every one of the first ten Amendments is directed at the individual rights of the citizens, namely "We-the-People individually, yet the Second Amendment addresses those rights collectively, especially as regards a trained, well-disciplined sate or federal military unit guided by military rules and regulations, is the height of mental deficiency.
The issue as to what constitutes a militia, and what constitutes the Army and Air Force National Guard, or the Navy and Marine reserves, has just come up in another unlikely area of government activity. On Friday, May 13th [leave it to government], the Pentagon announced its pick of bases for submission to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission [BRAC] for closure, realignment, or increased mission. On Wednesday, May 11th, Illinois State Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, "said she would file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich if any of the state's National Guard bases are included in the closure list," according to an article posted on entitled, "Base closing recommendations expected Friday," by staff writer George Cahlink.
The article continues, "Illinois has Air National Guard bases in Springfield and Peoria. Madigan and other BRAC opponents contend that the federal law prevents closure of National Guard bases in a state without the consent of its governor. That reading of the law is disputed by BRAC supporters who contend the commission has the authority to close bases."
Interesting dispute, no? Especially interesting coming from a state with a long history of hating, loathing and despising the militia, er, National Guard. Illinois Governor Blagojevich is on record as hating the Second Amendment as well, especially demanding that laws be imposed on other states to protect his state from gun crimes. His website offers: "Governor Blagojevich launches effort to fight gun trafficking - Governor sets up gun crime unit in State Police; New Gun Trafficking Unit will work with Indiana, Mississippi and federal agencies to stop flow of crime guns into Illinois." Got it? According to Blagojevich, ALL guns, and therefore, ALL of the Second Amendment, are ILLEGAL in his model state, a state that harbors the Cook County, City of Chicago Mayor Daley political crime machine that would put another former Chicago organized criminal to shame: Al Capone.
Blagojevich was perfectly happy to involve other states in his illegal gun control scheme, and even welcomed help from outside the state and the federal government, bent on eliminating a "citizens' militia" as provided for in the Constitution. And therefore, you may rest more than comfortably assured that the Gov' is one of those fuzzy-brained characters with a pointed head that offers: The National Guard IS the Militia, of course depending upon your definition of the word "is."
What a rude awakening for a police state fascist, no? The feds have just told Blagojevich that the National Guard and its base belong exclusively to them. As the late William Bendix so often pointed out from his days in the role of Chester A. Riley on classic radio and TV: "What a revoltin' development!"
But the Gun Nazis have always contended that the National Guard and the Militia were one and the same! "What a revoltin' development," indeed!
I called the Governor's office after checking the BRAC list, and after being switched around umpteen times, the last PA person agreed when asked, that the Capital Airport Air Guard Station was definitely in Springfield, and the realignment, not closure, would cause a net loss of 30 military spaces as well as all 133 civilian jobs. The PA person wasn't clear whether or not State Attorney General Madigan would pursue the matter further.
The issue, of course, isn't whether or not the State's Attorney General has jurisdiction or not in this matter; nor is it germane to point out that the biggest lying, most corrupt politicians seem always ready to jump to one side of an issue or the other as suits either their political party's needs or their own interests in order to manipulate public opinion. If the Militia isn't the National Guard, and the National Guard belongs exclusively to the feds and can be called up by the president, then who and what represents the State of Illinois', or for that matter, any state's, National Guard?
Theodore E. Lang
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.



This Site Served by TheHostPros