Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Yes and no. The National Guard's duties may have expanded, and the federal government may have a closer relationship than in colonial times, but they are still meant to serve their original task of serving as a defensive force for the several states.
|
Yes, but they're fundamentally different, in that it no longer makes sense to require (or permit) people to keep arms so that they can muster out to join the militia in times of emergency.
I think all of this business about individual vs. group rights w/r/t to the Second Amendment misses the point -- it presumes too much about the framers. They provided for an individual right to bear arms for militia service, not thinking that technological development would lead to an entirely different military. They were writing before the internal combustion engine. The army was, essentially, men and horses.
