Correct. But that's what it's referring to.
I wonder how you know that with such conviction given that the Founding Fathers had a deep distrust of government and and a total abhorrence for a standing army (i.e. a state militia is just another tool to extend governmental power especially since its ultimate leadership comes from DC)????
This thread has been totally hijacked. There are those of us who know about the right to keep and bear arms, and how that right has been corrupted. Then there are those who use weasel words and sophistry to attack that very nearly absolute right. I’m glad you’re on our side.
The bottom line is we don’t need approval from any government to defend ourselves; we never have and we never will. And there does not need to be any debate about it. That debate closed around 1776, before any Constitution was conceived.
It is OUTRAGEOUS that the man in the article was so abused by the local “authorities.” And if incidents such as the one described in the article continue, I am confident that they will be answered appropriately.
"especially since its ultimate leadership comes from DC)????"
The state militia had officers appointed by the state. The state militia was under the authority of the governor.