246
Comments (17)
sorted by:
14
Mehocmehogan 14 points ago +14 / -0

There are two basic kinds of militias — State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves or State Militias) and Naval Militias. These forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot be mobilized for federal service and they are not funded by the federal government.

Sounds like Oklahoma got a better deal.

11
M-I-vet 11 points ago +11 / -0

I don't see a problem with that... all other states should do the same.

3
MineOwnSelf 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just curious, do folks in the Nat Guard get pay/benefits/retirement for being in the Nat Guard? What would becoming a state militia change both for them personally, and for the state? Thank you.

2
Afto 2 points ago +2 / -0

They deserve everything for protecting their state....

3
MineOwnSelf 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree. I just don’t know what will change and was curious.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
031174 2 points ago +2 / -0

Feds need to relinquish all lands held there as well.

2
Pbman 2 points ago +2 / -0

They don't own any land in oklahoma to speak, of.

2
Beansprout12 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fort Sill...

1
Pbman 1 point ago +1 / -0

True but nothing like most western states.

1
DaesDaemar 1 point ago +1 / -0

The issue there is that another national guard force could come in and claim federal status and tell the locals to stand down... :(

2
test_pattern [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Congress has the right to call up an army, they can deploy the federalized national guard, they have added the right to require that State's maintain a State Defense (separate from the State's National Guard). but the Federal govt cannot deploy a federalized unit of the national guard to a State they don't recognize their nat guard.

1
aquasmurf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Anybody else think of drops 1 & 22?

1
welldamn 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like a WIN to me.

0
The_Watcher 0 points ago +1 / -1

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The distrusting cynic in me has a question:

Will that be deemed to be the Militia securing the free State and no others will be permitted to keep and bear arms?

That is the main problem with all this Q stuff. I now see a downside in every new fact I come across!

2
test_pattern [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Crowder discussed this a few days ago. "a well regulated Militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- noting that the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" does not define Militia. Militia comprises "the people."

-1
aPosteriori -1 points ago +1 / -2

No… it might if it doesn’t comply.

Use accurate headlines.