Recall the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Great, so states have militias (of which the National Guard is a major component) to protect themselves from tyranny by the federal government.

However, I also read:

When National Guard units are not under federal control, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the units of his or her respective state or territory

So, wait a second... part of the militia that's supposed to protect the state from the federal government is under the control of... the federal government? How is that supposed to work?

Do people just trust that in the event of a dispute, the National Guard's loyalty will be to the state and its governor rather than the president? If so, is that legal? If not, then is the whole thing just for show? What am I missing?

Recall the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Great, so states have militias (of which the National Guard is a major component) to protect themselves from tyranny by the federal government.

However, I also read:

When National Guard units are not under federal control, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the units of his or her respective state or territory

So, wait a second... part of the militia that's supposed to protect the state from the federal government is under the control of... the federal government? How is that supposed to work?

In the event of a dispute, is the National Guard's loyalty to the state and its governor, or to the federal government the president?