Replies

It's a facetious argument. The National Guard is part of the U.S. Military. It doesn't have "rights" any more than the Army or the Navy do. They have powers under the Constitution, but not rights. And, of course, if "the people" of the 2nd Amendment really means the National guard, then the 4th Amendment should really be read as...

The right of The National Guard to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the Guard personnel or things to be seized.

It's a facetious argument...... The right of The National Guard to be secure in their persons,..

Excellent example. It shows the great contradictions that the Left has in regards to their concepts of "Rights" and "Powers".

I was in the NG for 2 years, after 6 yrs. active. The National Guard never considered itself "the militia". Since any National Guard unit can be "Federalized", the National Guard would be useless in defending a state from a federal enemy, as is the intent of: "being necessary to the security of a free state..."