Can any of you military veterans clear something up for me from the story?
In the letters section, Mr. Hamblin clearly states that he was in a State Guard Unit, not a National Guard Unit, which is part of the Army.
What are the differences?
Surely a State Guard Unit would not be armed as a deployable Nat. Guard Unit would. Would they? Does this fact change the story enough to sway his circumstances?
“Mr. Hamblin clearly states that he was in a State Guard Unit, not a National Guard Unit, which is part of the army”
Hmmm. I blew right past that assuming it was typical media indifference.
You should google it, if you haven’t already. The State Guard aren’t a part of the military as far as I can tell. They are an all volunteer, nonpaid force, that is under the control of the governor, only. Their mission is to support the National Guard and state agencies during in state emergencies. I do not believe that they are deployable as they can not be called up by the feds.
That would explain the lack of weaponry. Thanks for pointing that out.