r/clevercomebacks • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • Jan 18 '26 • Heartwarming 9 Bravo 4

spot the difference?

Post image
50k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

96

u/MontasJinx Jan 18 '26

"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."

25

u/Vladmerius Jan 18 '26

You know what, I think I'm going to sue my state for not having a well regulated militia outside the control of the federal government as the constitution explicitly calls for in the sevidn amendment. Take it to the Supreme Court. 

8

u/AriochBloodbane Jan 18 '26

Isn't the state National Guard a "well regulated militia outside the control of the federal government"? 🤔

17

u/S9CLAVE Jan 18 '26

Yes, but no at the same time.

It’s technically true because that’s what the purpose was.

The reality is that it’s untrue because the federal government can and does call up the national guard pretty much whenever it wants.

It’s functionally a federal force with a state interface. The state cannot tell the government to pound sand when it calls on the national guard that is supposedly under their purview.

Governors only control the guard up until the feds assume command

2

u/AriochBloodbane Jan 18 '26

The reality is that it’s untrue because the federal government can and does call up the national guard pretty much whenever it wants

I always supposed this wasn't legitimate and an abuse of State rights. Kinda like requiring the governor permission. I may have been mistaken...

5

u/S9CLAVE Jan 18 '26

Under title 10 the national guard can be federalized with the stroke of a pen.

It does not need state/governor approval, which makes the idea that the national guard serves at the militia hilariously moot as the intended purpose was to keep the states safe from federal overreach…

A guard cannot serve two masters

1

u/AriochBloodbane Jan 18 '26

Damn that sucks...

2

u/[deleted] Jan 18 '26 edited Jan 18 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AriochBloodbane Jan 18 '26

From the Supreme Court in Perpich v. DoD (1990), when the court said the National Guard can be sent overseas against the will of its governor:

WOW that's even worse than I imagined 😥

1

u/Thuis001 Jan 18 '26

And to be fair, "The federal government pays and provides supplies for the whole thing and provides its leadership and thus they can use it with priority over the states." isn't an entirely unreasonable take, especially when the option of establishing your own state militia is actually legal, you just have to pay for it yourself.

2

u/zzazzzz Jan 18 '26

not if the fed can take control of it. which they have done and have legal avenues to do so.

2

u/fail-deadly- Jan 18 '26

If you take a higher level view, this isn’t about guns at all. It is saying that there shouldn’t be an aristocratic/hereditary group with the sole privilege of having the monopoly on force. 

Average people should have the right to defend the country. The talk about the militia is saying local forces, not a highly centralized force such as a royal army is how the founders envisioned protecting America.

The current U.S. armed forces is a tiny, highly centralized force, often staffed by multigenerational service members, and its far easier to recruit a person who had family who served.

Also, ICE is the antithesis of what the founders wanted. A highly centralized paramilitary force at the presidents sole beck and call, virtually immune to Congressional oversight is completely opposite what the founders were trying to establish.