Yesterday, at lunch, I dined with a professor who began the idiotic mantra about the National Guard not being designed as a federal service, blah blah blah shouldn't be deployed, blah. He even went so far as to call it a "national militia."
Ahem. Excuse me, but whether Active Component, Reserve, or National Guard, the tag on the left side of the uniform states "U.S. Army" on all our uniforms. Second, if you want the National Guard to be a state controlled-only militia, then the state can arm, equip, pay, and otherwise foot the bill for their militia. How many $5 Million tanks would you like added to your tax bill?
Of course, if the NG was simply a state militia, there would be no reason to buy tanks, we'd only need civil-emergency equipment. So, bulldozers, helicopters, etc. and a few rifles. After all, we aren't going to war.
Your state will also have to foot the bill for individual schools for basic training, and then special skill schools for each of the individual specialties (engineering, aviation, medical, etc.)
Just how high would you like your state taxes to go?
I do believe there is such a thing, however, as a "National Militia". It's referred to frequently as "We, the people..."
Every able-bodied citizen should be responsible, individually and as a whole, to answer the call of their nation. Whether that call is for the common defense, emergency of disaster relief, or alien invasion, we, the people are the ones that are necessary.
The framers of our constitution saw that the individual may, from time to time, have to fight for his country. He may have to defend his home and family. He may have to band together with his neighbors to defend the town. He may have to, from time to time, ride in a posse, to aid in enforcement of law, and just may, from time to time,look after himself without relying olely on the government.
indeed, the framers were so opposed to large governments and government control, that they saw it necessary for evry citizen to have the means to band together and fight the government if it overstepped its bounds.
If the militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a foreign invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia must possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms like cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers. Equal personal arms means, of course, those that include all design features, capabilities, and ergonomics that make a military firearm suitable for modern battle. If this is not the case then there is no point in having a militia, as it will not pose an effective fighting force. For example, the extreme inadequacy of bolt action rifles in combat against semiautomatic arms is well known. But the Founders' firm insistence upon having an effective militia is absolutely clear from their numerous writings on the subject and from the existence of the Second Amendment itself.
That being so, military-pattern firearms are obviously protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern firearms, or on military design elements of other firearms, is completely contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and is therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)completely supports this.]
I went a bit off tangent there. Sorry.
My points are this:
The national guard is a way to have a large standing army without paying for it every day. Keeping a trained reserve force handy, although not working 24-7 is good fiscal sense. In their role as state militia, serving the needs of a state's citizens in emergency is a crucial role for the National Guard. However, Joe Citizen must keep two things in mind: First, the needs of the Nation outweigh the needs of an individual state. Second, you're responsible (and the only one responsible) for your safety. Whether that safety is from personal or home defense, escaping natural disasters, or quelling riots in the cheese isle at the local piggly wiggly, society fails as a whole when the first response call someone for help. We are Americans, born and bred from the same stock as Lewis and Clark; we seek and set our own destiny, we master and tame the world around us to suit our needs.
If you wait around for someone else to take care of you, and are lucky enough for someone to do so, don't be surprised when they start setting new rules for you. If your government constantly is required or expected to care for you, don't be surprised when the erosion of rights comes to "keep you safe--from yourself."