TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:The term United States Army has changed over time. Here is a quote from wikipedia, which I believe to be true:

"Currently, the army is divided into the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The army is also divided into major branches such as Air Defense Artillery, Infantry, Aviation, Signal Corps, Corps of Engineers, and Armor. Before 1903 members of the National Guard were considered state soldiers unless federalized (i.e., activated) by the President. Since the Militia Act of 1903 all National Guard soldiers have held dual status: as National Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of their state or territory and, when activated, as a reserve of the U.S. Army under the authority of the President."

Correct, that's the way a PAO will explain the Guard's status.

G26ster wrote:The term United States Army has changed over time. Here is a quote from wikipedia, which I believe to be true:

"Currently, the army is divided into the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The army is also divided into major branches such as Air Defense Artillery, Infantry, Aviation, Signal Corps, Corps of Engineers, and Armor. Before 1903 members of the National Guard were considered state soldiers unless federalized (i.e., activated) by the President. Since the Militia Act of 1903 all National Guard soldiers have held dual status: as National Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of their state or territory and, when activated, as a reserve of the U.S. Army under the authority of the President."

I have read a couple places that described it a little different.
1) Army or just military
2) organized militia ie U.S. and state national guard and reserves.
3) unorganized militia or sometimes called the reserve militia that consists of everyone not included in above 2. I have also seen where the reserve militia can be equipped with as many guns as they can afford to buy. I will have to go hunt down where I read this at as I can not remember where at this time but it seems to me that it was describing the definition of militia from the militia act of 1902.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Here's the problem, and this just my feelings in the matter and I realize that it has no weight of law: I am 60 years old, and I am not entirely able-bodied. So by the above definition, I am no longer a part of the militia; and that breaks my heart because in my mind and my heart, I am very much part of it. I may not be able to run with a carbine and keep up with the young folks, but I have useful skills....not the least of which is being patient with young folks. And I can shoot, and teach others to shoot, but my heavy lifting days are behind me. I find myself at that "old dog" stage of life where the spirit is willing, but the body no longer is, and it is hard to give that up. I don't want to be "just another old man in the rear." If anything, I am more committed today to my love of country than at any other time previously. It bothers me that the U.S. code discriminates against me because of my age, and it bothers me that my age makes me less useful to my country.[/quote]


THIS

TexasGal wrote:Y'all better not leave us Texas Women out of this party.

I certainly hope not! My wife and daughter would be a great attribute to a militia. Proud women with skills and fortitude.

FishInTx wrote:

TexasGal wrote:Y'all better not leave us Texas Women out of this party.

I certainly hope not! My wife and daughter would be a great attribute to a militia. Proud women with skills and fortitude.

Besides, what's a party without women? (Went to WAY too many of those in high-school and college.)

jocat54 wrote: TAM... I really resemble those remarks

My 66 year old body and 20 year old mind don't get along very well anymore.

"I am not going to exploit...my opponent's youth and inexperience" - Ronald Reagan