But no link is provided to back up this key assertion.
That said, it probably is not a bad idea for the states to activate or start a militia, answering only to the state.
Because folks, sooner or later it is coming.
That's what I like about the Internet. Any time one reads an eyebrow-lifting article, the Killer Question is asked that will either give the item legs or kill it: "Source?"
In either event, it brings up an interesting question. During the Y2k flap it was reported that a Midwestern sheriff proposed deputizing all CCW holders in case things went bad. I wondered then, as I do now - suppose one did sign up for the "militia", THSHTF, and the governor called 'em out to serve in various parts of the state. Would guys leave their families in such times to serve elsewhere?
Agreed, also. This is inflammatory, and possible “boob bait,” but - that being said - the Peace of Appomattox hasn’t been this precarious in more than 40 years.
But no link is provided to back up this key assertion.
--------------------------------
Well, I can give you an "unsupported affirmation" on this. I read in the last year that Obama had done another one of his EOs which asserted federal control over the state national guards, and raised some eyebrows at that time. As well as I can remember, the source was a good, legitimate source, not some half wit blog. But, I can't remember the source. So, I agree, this point needs to be researched and verified. But I believe there is good reason to take it seriously.