re: This is a very potent argument against the "2nd amendment means militia" talking point

quote:

---

What kind of external threat would be bound by the US Constitution?

---

Clearly somewhere you’ve failed to follow this thread.

We are talking about standing army vs militia as a means to defend the homeland.

quote:

---

The Russians learned why you don’t use gas in defense of your homeland.

---

I'm not even talking about poison gas, or explosive gas or even nerve agents. There is one thing that animals need to live and engines needs to run. There are ways to take that away from a stalled force, and it's readily available in this country and easy to get more. It's used everyday everywhere.

People tend to think in terms of shooting and blasting and things like that, but it's really not even necessary. There are more efficient things that are easier to control, if you were in that situation.

While I’ve enjoyed the back and forth with someone who has a different opinion, we’ll have to disagree that 2021 America could be successfully defended against a peer threat without having a standing army and using only militias and improvised delaying tactics.

The reality is that a professional military would absolutely demolish a militia defending the US. You need a professional military for airpower, artillery, heavy mechanized, AOR C2. We’ve focused on light infantry in this thread, because that’s what militia offers, but the opposing force of a peer contains tech and capabilities that militia could not handle.

The second your civilian heavy equipment operators started obstructing routes by pushing dirt on highways they’d get demolished by aircraft. Dozers and front-end loaders aren’t exactly nimble.

Oh, I wasn't arguing against having a standing army, I was arguing against your opinion that the average guerilla group couldn't be very effective against invaders. I assure you, we could.
I was in both the army and Marine Corps, but the most effective things that I know, come from what I have learned out here in the world working around heavy industry, and there are a lot of people that know the same stuff that I do.

quote:

---

Dozers and front-end loaders aren’t exactly nimble.

---

Neither are tanks, MRAPs, HMMWVs, APCs, etc.

I have 20+ years in the Army and your argument is based on ignorance.

quote:

---

In short, a state-level discussion on where to limit ownership in keeping with Scalia’s Heller decision when he stated:

---

The 2010 McDonald decision incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the States through the 14th Amendment. If you are going to quote court decisions here I strongly suggest you come better educated than you currently are.

quote:

---

The second your civilian heavy equipment operators started obstructing routes by pushing dirt on highways they’d get demolished by aircraft. Dozers and front-end loaders aren’t exactly nimble.

---

That's why you would use explosives for that and you would do it far in advance of a force, or if you wanted to cut them off from supplies, you do it behind them.

A 5 million man army, could not take this country. Anybody that thinks they could, just hasn't travelled it. This country is huge, a 5 million man force would be spread very thin and easy to wipe out.

quote:

---

Iraq fell in about 100 hours when the target was the nation (and they were defended by a large professional military. It only bogged down when the mission changed to nation building. Had we decided to destroy their national capabilities and then leave or had we decided to lay waste and exterminate everyone, it would have been over quickly.

---

Are you really comparing The U.S. to Iraq?

quote:

---

Are you really comparing The U.S. to Iraq?

---

quote:

---

I recognize our population is far more capable than the Iraqi population.

That said, it does show that without airpower even a decently capable ground force is just a bunch of targets to a modern military force.

---

Lol. So even in your response to me where you acknowledged that Afghanistan had to be rooted out—and we never really did that successfully—that a decently capable ground force is actually incapable.

You’ll need to address the size of the US populace, the size of the US military and the ability for current US citizens in the military willing and able to fire on their own countrymen. As an analogy, it’s estimated only 1/3 of colonists fought against their own. Take away 1/3 of the military and you’ve created a pretty vast gap. Lastly, it’s not about the nation at that point. It’s about defending your home.

quote:

---

You’ll need to address the size of the US populace, the size of the US military and the ability for current US citizens in the military willing and able to fire on their own countrymen. As an analogy, it’s estimated only 1/3 of colonists fought against their own. Take away 1/3 of the military and you’ve created a pretty vast gap.

---

Nowhere in this thread am I discussing the US military attacking our own soil or people. I’m discussing (and have been throughout) the problem with the Founding Fathers’ preference for a militia over a standing army and how that no longer works in the modern world.