[robertpaulsen]

"State Militia have always been under Federal control, including the power to arm them."

Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?

So, now what do you say?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?
So, now what do you say?"

I say that there is no problem as long as the "unorganized militia" consisting of an armed citizenry is prepared to protect their own security.

The fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and neighbors of the federalized, organized militia will be prepared to respond with their own weapons to any threat to their freedoms. The federalized, organized militia will find themselves asked to act against the best interests of their families and many will not do so. Such a standing army cannot rule an armed citizenry.

[Ken H]

Now think about that, Ken H. If the state militias were under federal control, then they're not much use in overthrowing a tyrannical government are they?

Are you disputing that Congress and the President control State Militia or State National Guard?

That aside, as long as the individual RKBA is maintained and exercised, it should suffice for such a purpose if it becomes necessary.

So, now what do you say?

I would like you to answer my question on whether or not there was a time since 1789 when State Militia/National Guard were not under Federal control.