Having read through katlaughing's extremely informative links, I personally can see no need to change the PCA as it stands. Exemptions (by direct instruction and with the consent of Congress) have been granted where deemed appropriate and the "system" seems to work. In the first of the links posted by katlaughing they seem to object to an exemption being made with regard to use of military know-how with respect to biological and chemical weapons - I don't know of any organisation in the civil sector who would be better qualified to advise or handle those situations.

Surely the National Guard of each state, who are specifically exempted from the terms of the Act as they are under State control, are the "militia" as referred to in the US constitution. The term "militia" infers some sort of organisation, not any Tom, Dick or Harry on the basis that they own a gun. It may have been that back in 1776, but even then the Toms, Dicks and Harrys were organised into militia units and operated under some form of command structure.

I am currently reading Elizabeth Longford's revised book on "Wellington" - In the 1820's in the UK he saw the need to seperate the military from what were civil matters. It took Wellington and Sir Robert Peel damn near nine years to get the Police Force established in fact. Thereafter the only role for the military in civilian matters was as an "Aid to the Civil Power" and only on specific direction from the Home Office. So the situation as it stands in the UK is remarkably similar to that which exists in the USA with the PCA in place in it's present form. If it's not broke - don't fix it.

glen2Glen in very simple terms what you stated is correct regarding what constitutes a civil war - but only in simple terms. In the case of Parliament v the King, the latter, unfortunately,happened to be King of England, Scotland and Ireland. I say unfortunately because he used that position to further his cause by attempting to pit one against the other - hence the spread. His negotiations with foreign powers to assist in his war against his lawfully assembled parliament was one of the main reasons he got his head chopped off.

As a foot-note Kevin, if I respond to statements made in a thread leading to further comments - irrespective of how much off topic - neither I, or anyone else, requires your blessing to continue that discussion, nor your directions as to where we should discuss it.