you know that the national guard answers to the governor of the state/commonwealth, not the president of the united states (wasn't clear if you knew that, its a common mistake)
No, he has no jurisdiction over them whatsoever unless it is specifically granted to him by the governor. The right to keep a militia is what helps protect state sovereignty. Thats why I am ARMY Reserve, my "state's" budget is fucked constantly, so I'd rather get my paycheck from the big guy. plus the missions are cooler.
put simply, Obama got nuthin' on the national guard.
Cherry-picking one phrase out of a lengthy sentence is unreasonable. The founding fathers didn't want a standing professional army of the type that had been tools for tyrants in Europe for centuries. A "well regulated militia" is a citizen army, yes, but it's also an arm of the government, to be called upon in times of need so we wouldn't need mercenaries. Even in the Revolution, though, the militia was ineffective. That war was won by a paid professional army. Today, a citizen army, with each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon (hence the need to keep arms), is an anachronism, totally impractical, and that role has been relegated to the National Guard since the 1930s. The militia was considered "necessary to the security of a free state," i.e., it was to protect our country from foreign invaders, to keep our country secure, so we wouldn't need the mercenaries and soldiers kidnapped into service that powerful nations like Britain had deployed all over the world. Without an army, the state isn't secure; with a standing army loyal to a king or president, it isn't free. A well regulated militia, a force that trained regularly and obeyed officers (often elected), was supposed to solve that problem--but that was long before jets and nukes and flame throwers and smart bombs and drones. An F-16 costs thousands of dollars an hour to operate and requires constant practice to master, and one non-nuclear Stinger runs in excess of $30,000. As well armed as the government? Yeah, right.
Cherry-picking comes naturally to people who wave bibles.
Don't you mean cruise missiles in the place of stingers? lol
Today, a citizen army, with each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon (hence the need to keep arms), is an anachronism, totally impractical, and that role has been relegated to the National Guard since the 1930s.
Doesn't Switzerland manage this approach (at least the each man keeping and maintaining his own weapon) quite successfully?
The existence of powerful new weapons (jets missiles etc) doesn't nullify the deterrent that an armed citizenry presents to those who would like to subjugate them. Consider the existence of guerrilla warfare. A town or city is of limited use to an invader if it has to be bombed flat to secure dominance.
In reference to the Swiss, yeah, they have mandatory enlistment in their military, which is why every of age male has a weapon in their home. As far as its practical uses (bearing arms), it can go either way. In the event of an invasion, yeah, it would be helpful~ but who is going to invade? intercontinental invasions are impractical (see 'revolutionary war' and 'invasion of Iraq') and have so far ended in disaster if the occupied possess a similar quality of arms. That would have to be counterbalanced with the notion that, absent an invader, you have a lot of armed people in general, which can escalate a situation to violence given certain circumstances. I know I fear much less an invasion than an armed, ideological citizenry who take it upon themselves to "reclaim america."
I'm for firearm education, not a blanket ban or blanket endorsement. I own 4 firearms, and appreciate being able to~ but then again, I know I'm a reasonable person, and that, in this country, doesn't seem to be the norm.
In the event of an invasion, yeah, it would be helpful~ but who is going to invade?Despite it usually not turning out well, invasions do happen now and then. The existence of an armed and trained citizenry in Switzerland was named in Nazi records as one of the factors contributing to the decision not to invade (Source: Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II).