I think I may understand part of what the guy was saying. IF you consider the 2nd Amendment to be directly connected to the militia (which as most of us, and most scholars, don't think it is, as their are two thoughts going on, not one* see below) then the National Guard at one point and time could be considered a militia. Like 200 years ago, before they were the national guard. But once the national guard become capable of being federalized, they stopped being a militia.
The point of the original militia, was in all honesty and accuracy, to have a force ready to overthrow the government if need be. Once the government can control the militia, it loses that purpose and is not just another standing army. National Guard can be federalized and deployed and is now just a standing army, in no way meeting ANY definition of a militia.
I don't see how that is a bad thing in relating to the second amendment. Firstly, the 2A affirms the right to the people, not the militia. Second, the national guard not being a militia is good, because if somehow the courts rule it is a militia right, the case can be made that the entire population is the militia, and thus the right is still affirmed to the individual.
*The two thoughts of the 2A were expressed very well on Penn and Teller's show "Bull****" on showtime. They basically read it out loud like such:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (ok, so we need a militia) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (OK and the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia).
So what they're saying, and most scholars say, is that the 2nd Amendment means: A fighting force will always be necessary to keep the State free and further, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They're really two unrelated things. If anything, the connection is "BECAUSE we will always need a fighting force WE ALSO NEED armed citizens to protect against them in the event of tyranny."
And in response to M2 Carbine, I hope we don't see the days when guns are completely stripped - I for one won't stand for it. At the very least I'll find my place some nice bit of wilderness to mind my own business in. Hell, I'll go as far away as Alaska if it means I can just live in peace the way I want to.
While gun control has gotten more strict (generally) and there seems to be a bigger media attack, one thing that is comforting is that more and more people are buying guns. So the general citizenry of the US is pro-gun. We need to just keep recruiting new shooters on a personal level.
This board has 11,500 active members and a total registration of about 57,000. There are also thousands of guests. If us active members, all 11,500 of us, could recruit 3 new shooters a year, thats like 35,000 new shooters. It may seem small on the grand scale, but it'll add up. And don't aim for 3! Aim for 30! Stretching it, I know, but I've brought 2 new shooters into the fold in the month of November. Well, one is a new shooter, and one is a shooter that had stopped for years but is back in. I'm helping him pick out his first pistol.
I've got 2 more lined up ready to go to the range this weekend, so that puts me at 4 in the past 5 weeks. Take the challenge and recruit new shooters!
