If the government of the united States is to be considered federal, by default, it falls upon the militia to provide the man power necessary to defend the states from invasion, both foreign and domestic, while a strong national government by definition, uses standing armies, whose allegiance is to protect the financial interests of Wall Street corporations and not to defend the people.
The militia's purpose is primarily to serve in a defensive capacity and would be incapable of waging wars of aggression on foreign soil without the approval of Congress.
A standing army however, owes it's existence to the National government only and therefore benefits the corporations and international bankers and has been responsible for perpetual wars of aggression.
The militia was created to defend their homeland and according to their Oath, are sworn;
"To support and defend the Constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign AND domestic;", while those in the military are simply paid mercenaries, much like the Prussians hired by King George to suppress the colonies.
The Constitution clearly mandates in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16, that;
"The Congress shall have the Power;"
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; And;
"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;"
And according to the 2nd Amendment;
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
So, as you can see, with no mention of standing armies, a well regulated militia is what is mandated in the Constitution, for a Federal government and a standing army is not.
A well trained and well equipped militia is what we need to defend the sovereignty of the people, while a standing army is needed by Congress, according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 10;
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations,"
NOT; to execute the Laws of the Union,.." etcetera, etcetera. For confirmation;
Watch these videos
Replies
I have three questions, first; since State Militia's are no longer active and trained (well regulated) are we in danger of them being declared defunct and necessarily replaced, which would negate the need for private citizens to keep & bear arm? I, of course believe it would require a Constitutional Amendment, but there are several of those that I already disagree with.
Second; If The State is created by, for and of, "We The People" is The State intended to serve the needs of the people, or are the people intended to serve the needs of The State?
Third; If man owes servitude to the state, to what extent, for surely, with unlimited servitude, man is enslaved, is he not?
Fourth; I am conflicted on matters of drafts and militias and well understand what was presented, but does it square with Natural Law?
...the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
"The People" always refers to individuals, not to the post-modern construction (deception), that people refers to groups. The addition of the Bill of Rights is to offer one additional protection for the Pre-Existing Rights given by God, to the People, citizens of the sovereign united states of America.
In the Declaration "One People" designates the group of citizens making up America. "Separate and Equal" once again places unalienable rights as due to each individual. (Separate as persons, Equal as one group (with no partizenship)
Further in the Declaration, "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed..."
"WE" are the governed, not the governing, but, we are governed by our giving of our permission to be governed.
"WE" are supposed to be the sovereign Power, with rights pre-existing man's laws.
Much has been lost.
A standing army can protect us against a foreign enemy while a militia can protect us against a domestic enemy
section 8 of the Constitution states
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
They clearly state to provide and maintain a navy. That means they are to maintain a standing navy.
It also clearly states they can not maintain a standing army for more than 2 years. Our current dictatorship maintains a standing army by saying they reorder the budget every 2 years. If the founding fathers had wanted a standing army they would have done as they did for the standing navy. #13 would have read to provide and maintain a standing army. It clearly does not.
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
This clearly shows they were supposed to call for the militias to form the army in times of need.
16: 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;
#16 clearly states that the sovereign states were to provide the militias needed to form an army and to provide the officers for such army
Nowhere is there anything that states the federal government has authority to keep an maintain a standing army or to invade other countries or lands. In fact #15 clearly states, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; This is the sole reason the federal government is allowed to call forth the state militias to form an army.
The state militias in todays world could be considered the national guard
I'm not sure who to Trust anymore.
Why is there any question. Article six is clear that the constitution is the law of the land. The second amendment is part of the constitution. State laws infringing on gun rights, are null and void since Marbury vs Madison clearly defined. Judge, did you take an oath of office? Are you planning to not defend the cosntitution? Would that not be a breach of contract among other offenses? No one is bound to obey an unconstitonal law. No Court is bound or obliged to enforce an unconstitutional law.