Originally Posted by old300D
I"m not sure if you are just pretending to be slow or not, but it follows that if the military takes direction from the Federal government, and the Federal government is "for, by and of the people", then the military should be at the command of the people (indirectly of course). Did you miss this or willfully ignore it?
Read what you wrote and tell me I'm wrong again. It would appear that you are the one that is a bit slow on the uptake.
Why do you think there is such a thing as the Second Amendment?
"it follows that if the military takes direction from the Federal government,"
You may recall (but I doubt it) that during the Clinton administration the rank and file of the military were asked if they would take orders to hold weapons on the civilian population of the United States. Most answered no, to their credit. The point I'm making should be fairly obvious, even to you. If you think that YOU are even indirectly in command of the military, you are delusional.
Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, he understood the problem a bit better then you apparently do:
The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Like I said to FoTL tell a Soldier to do something, and see what happens...........
The Government controls the military, you do not, either directly or indirectly. If that isn't clear enough, then ask yourself, why are we in Iraq?