The 1st amendment has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation of the federal government, and so subject to federal control. The militia of Lexington/Concord owed as much to the government back then as does today’s Tea Party - none.
>The 1st amendment has nothing whatever to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation of the federal government, and so subject to federal control. The militia of Lexington/Concord owed as much to the government back then as does today’s Tea Party - none.
First, I cited the 2nd Amendment;
Second, if it were not for the actions of the government, the Tea Party would not exist as the major premise for the Tea Party is that the government should cut size & spending;
Third, the Militia and National Guards *ARE* linked, at least in some States:
NEW MEXICO STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE XVIII — Militia
Sec. 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.]
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the “national guard of New Mexico,” of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.
Sec. 2. [Organization, discipline andequipment of militia.]
The legislature shall provide for the organization, discipline and equipment of the militia, which shall conform as nearly as practicable to the organization, discipline and equipment of the regular army of the United States, and shall provide for the maintenance thereof.
Fourth, The mention of the National Guard was within a parenthetical, it read as follows: “I would say National Guard, but then people might be able to argue that equipment belongs to the Army itself and I want to constrain the debate to the relevant aspects” — Thank you for proving me right.
Fifth, Instead of National Guard in my example I used State Police.