But it's not me who came up with this--it's actually in the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8, clause 16 not only gives congress the power to arm the militia, but it also gives it the authority to organise
it. And given that the Supremacy clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of
the Constitution) states that "the Laws of the United States which shall
be made" according to the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land,
that means that if the Congress says the National Guard is the milita:
Tough shit, pal, it's THE MILITIA.
I'm not going
into the usual bullshit about 10 USC 311 and the unorganised miltia, but
that is the equivalent of saying having a draft card makes you a member
of the US military.
So, unless you are seriously suggesting the
dismantling/radical reorganisation of the United States Military, then
you are out of luck.
Even then, you have got to be willing to be enrolled (enlisted) to claim the right.
As Joseph Story said in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890:
yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a
well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised,
that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any
system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of
its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to
keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to
see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to
disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the
protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
line--if you have a problem with something being "a creature of Federal
Law"--then you really have a problem with the US Constitution.
But, as I like to say, some people who claim to defend the Constitution need to study up on what exactly they claim to be defending.