ECSNorway Wrote:Robkelk: I think I've identified the fundamental disconnect and why we keep talking at cross-purposes.
You're thinking of "the militia" as being a lesser form of standing army. That it's something that you join, that has leaders and officers and ranks and officialness and all that.
It isn't. It isn't something you join, it isn't anything like that. It is not an organization.
It is the entire citizenry, taking up arms in defense of their homeland. Yes, there is a cadre of formally organized people under arms that can be called on in times of external war -- the National Guard and Reserves.
But the Militia as an active, organized force only exists when called upon. Only when needed, in defense of the nation against external aggression. In other times, such as now, the militia is not organized, not active, not shaped. It is amorphous and vague and widespread.
I took a little look into the status of Militia in Canada and that was what clued me in. To Canada, the Militia -is- the national standing army. It's something that you enroll in, get trained for, have a rank in, get issued equipment by.
It's not like that here at all.
Here's a metaphor for you.
The Canadian Militia is a glass of water. Rob's asking what shape my glass is.
The American Armed Forces are a barrel of water. The National Guard is a bottle of it.
The Militia isn't a glass. It is the ocean they all float on.
And that explains the disconnect. Thank you.
At least now I know that my question as asked was nonsensical...
Now I have to figure out what my next question is.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012