Haven’t needed one yet. Might need one in the next few upcoming years if things keep going as poorly as they have been. The second amendment was intended for citizens to protect themselves from invading forces and malevolent American government alike. We haven’t yet had a desperate enough need to exercise it in such a fashion, so instead it’s merely built up a gun nut culture in America. But it’s there for such times as we find ourselves approaching.
I sincerely, desperately hope it doesn’t come to that. But I’m comforted by the fact that one of the favorite tools of my possible enemy is one that also guarantees I am never defenseless.
Does it really though? It certainly doesn’t level the playing field between those who have nukes and those who gave them up to get a guarantee of sovereignty…
The military has drones though, that can used against the population at any time. How do you defend against that with arms from the civilian market? Or just tanks.
For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that’s 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that’s 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.
For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.
There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don’t need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US… When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.
When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as “Rambo,” but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.
What did the 2A solve in the modern days though? Where is that need for a Militia?
Haven’t needed one yet. Might need one in the next few upcoming years if things keep going as poorly as they have been. The second amendment was intended for citizens to protect themselves from invading forces and malevolent American government alike. We haven’t yet had a desperate enough need to exercise it in such a fashion, so instead it’s merely built up a gun nut culture in America. But it’s there for such times as we find ourselves approaching.
I sincerely, desperately hope it doesn’t come to that. But I’m comforted by the fact that one of the favorite tools of my possible enemy is one that also guarantees I am never defenseless.
The same could be said about nukes. You hope they’re never needed, but the fact that they’re there helps keep things in check.
Does it really though? It certainly doesn’t level the playing field between those who have nukes and those who gave them up to get a guarantee of sovereignty…
That’s why americans don’t what to give up their guns.
The military has drones though, that can used against the population at any time. How do you defend against that with arms from the civilian market? Or just tanks.
It is a matter of scale and tactics.
For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that’s 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that’s 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.
For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.
There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don’t need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US… When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.
When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as “Rambo,” but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.