Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
2. Silly response. When is the last time that you heard
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:20 PM
Dec 2012

of anyone being called up from the 'unorganized Militia'?

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
4. My post is correct. If truth bothers you so be it. Answer to your question is at
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:29 PM
Dec 2012

State Guard Association of the United States http://www.sgaus.org/

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
6. Are you really telling us that Lanza was a member of
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:11 PM
Dec 2012

the Connecticut Governor's Foot and House Guard units?

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
7. I only cited laws.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 07:53 PM
Dec 2012

"Sec. 27-1. Persons subject to military duty. All male citizens and all male residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, not exempt by law, shall be subject to military duty and designated as the militia. All female citizens and all female residents of the state who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, may enlist voluntarily in any women's unit of the armed forces of the state."

There are more uses for Connecticut's militia than the "Foot and House Guard units".

Those with questions can find answers at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap504.htm#Sec27-1.htm

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. sure it is.
Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:22 PM
Dec 2012

The 2nd Amendment isn't limited as your op suggests. That simply is not how the SCOTUS has ever interpreted it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This is not about the Sec...