Certainly as you approach 8 billion, they’re more disorganized, but they’re not ever an actual militia, more just a horde of people all trying to help each other dismantle any relevant infrastructure and kill any soldiers sent to suppress them. No training, but absolute solidarity.
Comment on How many people would it take to overwhelm a fully functioning military in a nuclear state?
Apepollo11@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It depends.
Are the people actually part of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state? Or had the government spent the last century reframing that right as “any idiot can own a lethal weapon without training”, and as a result the people are a disorganised and easily-suppressible rabble?
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
endless_nameless@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s worth noting that at the time of writing, the words “well-regulated militia” referred to all fighting age men of sound mind. It wasn’t a thing to join or train for.
Apepollo11@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s half right.
Militias were always things that you joined and they had a chain of command. Just because they were volunteer forces, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t an organisation. The Peterloo Massacre (1819) was conducted by the local militia. They were all volunteers, but they operated as a paramilitary group.
“Well-regulated militia” literally meant what it sounds like today - a well-regulated volunteer armed force.
The amendment is saying that the government shall not prevent people from joining well-regulated armed militias. Which admittedly sounds terrifying to modern ears but, historically, armed militias helped keep the peace in the days before police forces.
endless_nameless@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, it’s completely right. At the time of writing, it did literally mean all able men of fighting age. This was determined by the supreme court in 2008. That’s not to say there weren’t specific militia organizations, but it’s not what the amendment is specifically referring to.
Apepollo11@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ll admit, I didn’t know the Supreme Court had said that.
It’s an insane interpretation - and I see that many justices said so at the time.
I guess whether or not the writers of the amendment actually meant every able-bodied man when they wrote “well-regulated militia”, or whether they meant a militia, is impossible to know for sure.
But to say that the word meant something different at the time is patently untrue. Around the English speaking world at that time, local militias - with that specific word used - were used to keep order. It was a common world for an actual thing people would have been familiar with.