the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!!!"
Excellent clarification on prefatory and declarative clauses of the
Second Amendment :
"Was the plan really to just have unorganized amateurs grab their rifles and repel the invasion of a well-trained military force?
The answer is no, and we know this .........................":
Hint: Our founding fathers hated and knew the evils of a "standing army!"
More on the Second Amendment:
In relation to the Second Amendment, Who or What is the National Guard?
The National Guard is not the Constitutional Militia and the Constitutional Militia exits and has existed since before the creation of the Constitution; one purpose of the Militia is to control a tyrannical government. The article below discusses whether or not the National Guard fulfills the role of the Constitutional Militia of the Several States as our government continually attempts to convince us.
This excerpt is taken from the article “A Critical Guide for the Second Amendment>”
by Glenn Harlan Reynolds. http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
A reading of the full article is strongly recommended when you have more time. Once read, you will have attained a better understanding of our freedom and the inalienable pre-existing right of self defense than most citizens; But for now, here is the excerpt:
“One commonplace assertion of newspaper editorialists and others who discuss the Second Amendment in the popular press is that the National Guard is the "militia" protected by that Amendment. This is clearly wrong. As mentioned above, the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment was to be composed of the entire populace, for only such a body could serve as a check on the (p.476)government. Indeed, both English and American history had led Americans to be very suspicious of "select" militias. Such bodies, composed of those deemed politically reliable by authorities, had played unfortunate roles in the past, and were regarded with the same suspicion as standing armies. As one scholar notes, the Framers' references to select militias were "strongly pejorative."
Today's National Guard, which might more properly be thought of as "troops" than "militia" anyhow, is a very select militia indeed, and can hardly be expected to substitute for the "whole body of the people." The National Guard was never designed to resist a tyrannical government. Rather, the National Guard was created in response to the perceived shortcomings of the militia as an offensive force; there were repeated incidents in which the militia refused to invade Canada, Mexico, and various other locations, or in which federal attempts to so employ the militia were held illegal.
Under the current system, National Guard officers have dual status: they are both members of the State Guard and members of the federal armed (p.477)forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. They can be called out at will by the federal government, and such call-outs cannot be resisted, in any meaningful fashion, by them or by their states. They are subject to federal military discipline on the same basis as members of the national government's armed forces. And they are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States government, as well as to their states. As one military officer writes:
By providing for a militia in the Constitution, the Framers sought to strengthen civilian control of the military. They postulated that a militia composed of citizen-soldiers would curb any unseemly ambitions of the small standing army. Today's National Guard is often perceived as the successor to the militia, and observers still tout the Guard's role as the ultimate restraint on the professional military.
The reality, however, is much different. Today's national guard is a very different force from the colonial-era militia. With 178,000 full-time federal employees and almost all of its budget drawn from the federal government, the National Guard is, for all practical purposes, a federal force. Indeed, one commentator concluded that it is very much akin to the "standing army" against which the Founding Fathers railed.
It is thus difficult to argue that the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is merely today's National Guard, or, for that matter, any other select governmental body. As Professor Malcolm states, "[t]he argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation." At any rate, one need look no further than the statute books (p.478)to see that such an assertion is incorrect: the National Guard and the militia are distinct entities. At both the federal and state levels, the "unorganized militia" is defined as essentially the entire population except for the old and the very young--with the difference that many states include women. Furthermore, of course, neither the National Guard nor any institution much like it existed at the time of the framing. As Standard Model scholars point out, this makes any argument that the Second Amendment merely protects the National Guard untenable.”