If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This reminds of after Katrina, law enforcement seized everyone's firearms of any kind and doing warrantless searches for guns and taking people into custody without a warrant who refused to leave their homes.

The excuse was a claim that there was a report that a police helicopter had been shot at. They claimed this justified total elimination of2A for a total firearms confiscation - while providing virtually no police protection whatsoever.

Look out for you and your loved ones yourselves. Don't rely on the government.

From what I recall, and videotape of the disaster seems to reinforce, is that non-sworn private contractors (as in "Blackwater") did the bulk of the firearm seizures.
I was appalled hearing that and seeing the no-knock raids.
No, I cannot confirm further, I just have the videotapes of WWVL-TV's 24-hr wall to wall coverage where they reported that.
Far as I can tell, if Blackwater comes to your door demanding your guns, it's no different than your neighbor doing the same.
They're not military, and they're not law enforcement.
They're mercenaries.
And if what was claimed was actually true, you'd be within your rights to tell them to go pound sand, while aiming at them if need be.

But I could be wrong

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Another dodge lol Still waiting, please present one fact that shows i didn't have a choice in post #10, one! Thanks!

I cannot imagine Rich behind the wheel of a MoPar but he seems eager to sell dodges.

 

[AGENT J]

I cannot imagine Rich behind the wheel of a MoPar but he seems eager to sell dodges.

View attachment 67327930

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is no militia, there is only the National Guard

These days, if I am not mistaken, the state National Guards ARE "the militia" now.
Am I wrong?

 

[Rich2018]

From what I recall, and videotape of the disaster seems to reinforce, is that non-sworn private contractors (as in "Blackwater") did the bulk of the firearm seizures.
I was appalled hearing that and seeing the no-knock raids.
No, I cannot confirm further, I just have the videotapes of WWVL-TV's 24-hr wall to wall coverage where they reported that.
Far as I can tell, if Blackwater comes to your door demanding your guns, it's no different than your neighbor doing the same.
They're not military, and they're not law enforcement.
They're mercenaries.
And if what was claimed was actually true, you'd be within your rights to tell them to go pound sand, while aiming at them if need be.

But I could be wrong

I recall them being local police back up by armed national guard:

"Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.
Police officers and federal law enforcement agents scoured the city carrying assault rifles seeking residents who have holed up to avoid forcible eviction, as well as those who are still considering evacuating voluntarily to escape the city's putrid waters."

Police Begin Seizing Guns of Civilians (Published 2005)

New Orleans police officers begin confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for forced evacuation of last holdouts, as Pres Bush steels nation for grisly scenes of recovering dead that will unfold in coming days; police scour city seeking residents trying to avoid evacation as well as...

www.nytimes.com

 

[OscarLevant]

These days, if I am not mistaken, the state National Guards ARE "the militia" now.
Am I wrong?

I would argue no, because a permanent military force is not a militia, it is the opposite, a standing army, i.e., disciplined, trained, always in uniform, ( except when off base or on leave, of course).

You could argue the 'reserves' are a militia, though. But, given the existence of the national guard, and that the NG reserves are an extension to supplement the permanent force, I'd say no.

But, if there is some codified language articulating these, I'll defer to it.

 

[Rich2018]

I would argue no, because a permanent military force is not a militia, it is the opposite, a standing army, i.e., disciplined, trained, always in uniform, ( except when off base or on leave, of course).

You could argue the 'reserves' are a militia, though. But, given the existence of the national guard, and that the NG reserves are an extension to supplement the permanent force, I'd say no.

But, if there is some codified language articulating these, I'll defer to it.

But the reserves and NG have a place within the structural organization of the US army

A militia is irregular, and so would not.

 

[beerftw]

No, just ridiculing your simplistic view on armored warfare

The USA and USSR made even bigger mistakes in your book.
You said:



The USSR built over 84,000 T-34 tanks
The USA built over 49,000 M-4 Sherman tanks

Weird how they built so many when they're "extremely" easy to knock out - in your mind at least



Easier that US/Soviet tanks? I would love to see your evidence to prove this BS claim
Germany went for a quality over quantity approach, and if anything should've built more cheaper tanks




Smaller than what? A Pz III, a Pz IV - I don't think so
In fact was the T-34/85 (6.68m) much small than the Pz V (6.87m) ?

The Panther and Tiger were heavier though

Resorting to ramming enemy tanks in battle, is hardly a recommendation of the design.




Do you have a SINGLE example of a German tank, in WWII, being knocked out by an IED ?




Sure a militia can make a bomb...I never said they couldn't
But in terms of general warfare, they're pretty much useless


However where the terrain favors irregular troops, like mountainous regions of dense jungle, a regular army has to be able to modify its tactics
The USA lost in Vietnam because it was seen an an invader and was fighting an attritional war it could only lose
The USSR lost in Afghanistan because the topography makes fighting a war there virtually impossible.

Then again, neither the USA or USSR had the anti-partisan mindset of the Nazis.

For number of tanks you are using a traditional battle method but comparing light tanks to heavy tanks, which is a fallacy in and of itself, I am mostly referring to the later panzer tanks not the older ones which were smaller.

Militia defending against such tanks would not be fighting tanking on tank or using small arms to combat tanks, they would be using irregular methods, the current m1a is much tougher than the panzer ever could dream to be yet quite a few were taken out by untrained shia militia in iraq most of whom were not very literate.

Tanks in general suffer when used in urban combat, they suffer even more greatly when improvised explosives are used against them, even knocking the tracks off a tank makes it a sitting duck. Much like dealing with anti tank mines, dealing with easily made ieds in urban combat areas becomes a mess, enough to slow down or halt an armored invasion without a standing military.

Literally this was proven in iraq, and chechnya, where tanks ended up taking a backseat to lightweight armored vehicles designed to handle mines and ied's better, and even then the handle better still meant they could mess those trucks up bad, much of the improved survival rate came from training soldiers to detect and handle ieds, and to be more cautious on roadways and in urban centers rather than charging in with armor.

 

[Rich2018]

For number of tanks you are using a traditional battle method but comparing light tanks to heavy tanks, which is a fallacy in and of itself, I am mostly referring to the later panzer tanks not the older ones which were smaller.

Yet the Germans used them as "battle tanks" and had considerable success
Indeed it's when the larger tanks started being produced that Germany's fortunes started to reverse

But I mentioned the US and USSR most common battle tanks - why were they produced in such numbers if they were so easy to disable ?

Militia defending against such tanks would not be fighting tanking on tank or using small arms to combat tanks, they would be using irregular methods...

You mean run away
What if their task was to defend a key point - like a bridge or airport ?

the current m1a is much tougher than the panzer ever could dream to be yet quite a few were taken out by untrained shia militia in iraq most of whom were not very literate.

How many ?

Tanks in general suffer when used in urban combat, they suffer even more greatly when improvised explosives are used against them, even knocking the tracks off a tank makes it a sitting duck. Much like dealing with anti tank mines, dealing with easily made ieds in urban combat areas becomes a mess, enough to slow down or halt an armored invasion without a standing military.

Unless supported by infantry

Literally this was proven in iraq, and chechnya, where tanks ended up taking a backseat to lightweight armored vehicles designed to handle mines and ied's better, and even then the handle better still meant they could mess those trucks up bad, much of the improved survival rate came from training soldiers to detect and handle ieds, and to be more cautious on roadways and in urban centers rather than charging in with armor.

Lighter vehicles cannot "handle" IEDs better, though more modern military vehicles are better designed to withstand a mine blast from underneath

And tanks do not "charge"
They're basically armored, direct fire artillery.

 

[beerftw]

Yet the Germans used them as "battle tanks" and had considerable success
Indeed it's when the larger tanks started being produced that Germany's fortunes started to reverse

But I mentioned the US and USSR most common battle tanks - why were they produced in such numbers if they were so easy to disable ?




You mean run away
What if their task was to defend a key point - like a bridge or airport ?




How many ?




Unless supported by infantry




Lighter vehicles cannot "handle" IEDs better, though more modern military vehicles are better designed to withstand a mine blast from underneath

And tanks do not "charge"
They're basically armored, direct fire artillery.

It was actually when the t-34 came out that the germans fortunes got reverse. The sherman was highly effective if used as intended but the americans never used them as intended much, ie cheap fast mobile tanks that could enter the battlefield and supplement infantry as well as take on panzer tanks but not on a one to one ratio as the shermans were intended to use numbers to combat them. The t-34 scared the germans bad, they had to keep upgrading their tanks to keep from getting their asses kicked by soviet tanks, whichexceeded by using geometry to deflect tank rounds rather than just using thicker and thicker armor, meaning they could stand up to the panzers but were alse lightweight and cheap to produce.

Why so many were produced is because the entire war of ww2 was a regular war, not an irregular war. The countries like britain that could have fought irregular warfare never got invaded and britain even withstood their bombing campaign and kept on rolling. Other countries like france surrendered quickly, and the soviet union mobilized all the able bodied anyways so there never was a militia for them. For the soviet union who did the bulk of the fighting in ww2 if you were able bodied you were sent to fight unless you were among the few in essential tasks. It was not uncommon for them to have the elderly, or the injured in war to be sent to handle civilian tasks to keep as many of the able bodied on the warfront.

If defending a key point was the task of a militia ied's could very easily destroy any tank formation and render them utterly worthless. To assume just running away again shows you have no clue how warfare works or how regular and irregu7lar tactics are both different and can be used together. In defending such a point the regular military would be working with the militia, the militia would be tasked with halting or slowing an enemy movement while the regular army would be stopping aircraft and working side by side with the militia against ground forces and armored units.

 

[Rich2018]

It was actually when the t-34 came out that the germans fortunes got reverse....

Barbarossa started in June 1941, are you saying that the T-34 was not in the Red Army's inventory at that time ?
Do you know what the "34" means in T-34 ?


"Prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II, the German armed forces were not aware of two newly developed Soviet tanks, the T-34 and the KV. As a result, they were surprised when they met them in combat for the first time in June 1941"

German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...the sherman was highly effective if used as intended but the americans never used them as intended much, ie cheap fast mobile tanks that could enter the battlefield and supplement infantry as well as take on panzer tanks but not on a one to one ratio as the shermans were intended to use numbers to combat them...

What's your source for the US army not using M-4 Shermans as intended ?

...the t-34 scared the germans bad, they had to keep upgrading their tanks to keep from getting their asses kicked by soviet tanks, which exceeded by using geometry to deflect tank rounds rather than just using thicker and thicker armor, meaning they could stand up to the panzers but were alse lightweight and cheap to produce.

A Pz IV 75mm gun was capable of destroying a T-34

Germany switched from quantity to quality (perhaps rightly perceiving that they couldn't match the USA and USSR for production) - but they swung too far in that direction with the production of Pz VI
The Tiger tank should never have been built. Guderian had it right when he suggested simply copying the T-34 (just with a better gun and turret to take it)

Why so many were produced is because the entire war of ww2 was a regular war, not an irregular war....

But you said panzers (tanks) were "exceedingly easy" to knock out

The countries like britain that could have fought irregular warfare never got invaded...

The Royal Navy was the force that prevented invasion, were it not for it, British militia would've been just cannon fodder

...and britain even withstood their bombing campaign and kept on rolling....

So did Germany and they endured far worse bombing

...the soviet union mobilized all the able bodied anyways so there never was a militia for them. For the soviet union who did the bulk of the fighting in ww2 if you were able bodied you were sent to fight unless you were among the few in essential tasks. It was not uncommon for them to have the elderly, or the injured in war to be sent to handle civilian tasks to keep as many of the able bodied on the warfront.

Soviet partisans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If defending a key point was the task of a militia ied's could very easily destroy any tank formation and render them utterly worthless....

Absolute rubbish, IED's do NOT destroy a tank formation

You know that the SMALLEST armored formation is the brigade right ?

...to assume just running away again shows you have no clue how warfare works or how regular and irregular tactics are both different and can be used together. In defending such a point the regular military would be working with the militia, the militia would be tasked with halting or slowing an enemy movement while the regular army would be stopping aircraft and working side by side with the militia against ground forces and armored units.

If you are defending a KEY point (do you know what a Key Point is?) and you run away, then the enemy takes it, doesn't it ?

Can you give an example of irregular/militia forces slowing down an enemy assault ?

 

[beerftw]

Barbarossa started in June 1941, are you saying that the T-34 was not in the Red Army's inventory at that time ?
Do you know what the "34" means in T-34 ?


"Prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II, the German armed forces were not aware of two newly developed Soviet tanks, the T-34 and the KV. As a result, they were surprised when they met them in combat for the first time in June 1941"

German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What's your source for the US army not using M-4 Shermans as intended ?




A Pz IV 75mm gun was capable of destroying a T-34

Germany switched from quantity to quality (perhaps rightly perceiving that they couldn't match the USA and USSR for production) - but they swung too far in that direction with the production of Pz VI
The Tiger tank should never have been built. Guderian had it right when he suggested simply copying the T-34 (just with a better gun and turret to take it)




But you said panzers (tanks) were "exceedingly easy" to knock out




The Royal Navy was the force that prevented invasion, were it not for it, British militia would've been just cannon fodder




So did Germany and they endured far worse bombing

Soviet partisans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Absolute rubbish, IED's do NOT destroy a tank formation

You know that the SMALLEST armored formation is the brigade right ?




If you are defending a KEY point (do you know what a Key Point is?) and you run away, then the enemy takes it, doesn't it ?

Can you give an example of irregular/militia forces slowing down an enemy assault ?

The t-34 was scarce at the early parts of the german invasion, they existed but had not been pushed through in numbers until later, despite that the germans were shocked that the t-34 and the kv matched or beat their panzer tanks, causing germany to upgrade to compete. Keep in mind there were less than 1000 at the start of the german invasion of the soviet union, the soviet union built a metric crapton more later on after they tested it in battle and worked out the bugs for mass production(well worked out the bugs enough during wartime meaning they could rely on it enough in mass production)


The sherman was often used to go head on against panzers, the sherman was designed to be a light tank not to fight head on one on one against other medium or heavy tanks. The original idea was to use numbers as an advantage for infantry maneuvers and also tank battles however in the end they ended up using the sherman as the primary tank due to ease of production and cost and quite often using it to go head on with much bigger tanks rather than the intended idea.


And yes panzer tanks are easy to knock out, all tanks are easy to knock out, this is why the m1a which makes the best panzer germany had during ww2 look like the most helpless pile of garbage can be defeated by barefoot rebels who can not read or write and have no formal military training, this is why the abrahms which makes even the tiger 2 look like a joke has been removed from most of our recent conflicts, it's size and speed make it an easy target to anyone with the absolute most basic understanding of chemistry.


No the british navy did not stop the german invasion, britain as a whole stopped the german invasion, germany relied on a bombing campaign to force britain to surrender which failed horribly, if the bombing campaign was unable to force britain to surrender a sea invasion would have failed as well.

 

[RF667799]

You know that the SMALLEST armored formation is the brigade right ?

You can support the bolded statement, above?

 

[Rich2018]

The t-34 was scarce at the early parts of the german invasion, they existed but had not been pushed through in numbers until later...

But you said:

It was actually when the t-34 came out that the germans fortunes got reverse....

But the T-34 was in service from the very start of the Great Patriotic War
So according to your figures, how "scarce" was the T-34 during Barbarossa...and indeed, when exactly would you say "the germans fortunes got reverse" ?

(Have you worked out what the "34" in T-34 meant yet ?)

The sherman was often used to go head on against panzers, the sherman was designed to be a light tank not to fight head on one on one against other medium or heavy tanks...

The Sherman was a "light tank" huh ?

"The M4 Sherman, officially Medium Tank, M4, was the most widely used medium tank by the United States and Western Allies in World War II..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

So, in your opinion, what tank was the US army supposed to equip its spearhead armored formations with ?

...panzer tanks are easy to knock out, all tanks are easy to knock out...

Then why were 40,000 Sherman MEDIUM tanks build if they're so "easy" to knock out ?

You have no military experience at all do you ?

...this is why the m1a which makes the best panzer germany had during ww2 look like the most helpless pile of garbage....

And would you say the F-22 Raptor makes the best German fighters of WWII look like "garbage"
And would you say the Los Angeles class SSN, makes the best German U-boats of WWII look like "garbage"

...can be defeated by barefoot rebels who can not read or write and have no formal military training, this is why the abrahms which makes even the tiger 2 look like a joke has been removed from most of our recent conflicts, it's size and speed make it an easy target to anyone with the absolute most basic understanding of chemistry.

No, it's because there is little or no role for an MBT in low intensity "COIN" operations
You'll find little use for the MLRS or AA missiles either

But when you need a tank, nothing else will suffice

No the british navy did not stop the german invasion, britain as a whole stopped the german invasion, germany relied on a bombing campaign to force britain to surrender which failed horribly, if the bombing campaign was unable to force britain to surrender a sea invasion would have failed as well.

Germany did fail at forcing a surrender by a bombing campaign
And the reason there was no invasion was because the Royal Navy was the biggest navy in the world, in 1940.

 

[beerftw]

But you said:



But the T-34 was in service from the very start of the Great Patriotic War
So according to your figures, how "scarce" was the T-34 during Barbarossa...and indeed, when exactly would you say "the germans fortunes got reverse" ?

(Have you worked out what the "34" in T-34 meant yet ?)





The Sherman was a "light tank" huh ?

"The M4 Sherman, officially Medium Tank, M4, was the most widely used medium tank by the United States and Western Allies in World War II..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

So, in your opinion, what tank was the US army supposed to equip its spearhead armored formations with ?




Then why were 40,000 Sherman MEDIUM tanks build if they're so "easy" to knock out ?

You have no military experience at all do you ?




And would you say the F-22 Raptor makes the best German fighters of WWII look like "garbage"
And would you say the Los Angeles class SSN, makes the best German U-boats of WWII look like "garbage"




No, it's because there is little or no role for an MBT in low intensity "COIN" operations
You'll find little use for the MLRS or AA missiles either

But when you need a tank, nothing else will suffice



Germany did fail at forcing a surrender by a bombing campaign
And the reason there was no invasion was because the Royal Navy was the biggest navy in the world, in 1940.

Here is a question have you worked out what the 34 in t-34 means? I will give you a hint it does not mean 1934, as it's design started in 1937 and did not hit production until 1941, and did not hit mass production until 1942.

To spearhead operations an actual heavy tank would have been better, by modern standards the sherman was a light tank, and even being a medium tank of it's day it was designed to be used in numbers not as a one on one machine against other tanks.

You like to claim oh you have no military experience, but answer this why were 40k built if they were not easy to knock out, you could tell they were literally using numbers to win the war, meaning they could not only outnumber enemy tanks, but for every tank destroyed 3 or 4 more could be built outlasting the enemy. Fyi they were also very easy to knock out, you are again trying to use a convention war as justification that irregular warfare will never work, despite the fact every single war post ww2 has proven my point, tanks are fairly easy to knock out by any determined force in irregular warfare.


Yess the f-22 and our current subs do make nazi germanies equipment look like garbage, what universe do you live in?

An invading force fighting a militia would in itself be a coin situation, that is the point, armor becomes near worthless when the local population can use sniper tactics, ied's etc to disable armor and bottleneck infantry, hence why urban combat is often slow and dangerous, as in an urban environment the defender always has the extreme upper hand, and the invader has to proceed cautiously. This is why entire doctrines on war changed after vietnam and again after iraq, in iraq military casualties stayed fairly in urban environments, but that was done by modifying doctrine to counter insurgen fighting, rather than your thinking that armor is king.

I will tell you now it is not, armor is only as effective as an enemy allows it to be, and combined arms needs to use all of its equipment properly and in a disciplined manner, not just charging in assuming some militia will never stand a chance because we gotz tanks!

And fyi all of this is assuming that the militia had to improvise everything, if it had been a real war things like atgm's and mines likely would be handed to the militia to ensure defense and to augment the small active military left for defence as most of the military would be on the frontlines elsewhere.

 

[Rich2018]

I will give you a hint it does not mean 1934, as it's design started in 1937 and did not hit production until 1941, and did not hit mass production until 1942.

"The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940..."

So it was available in 1941 and through 1942, when Germany was on the offensive

To spearhead operations an actual heavy tank would have been better, by modern standards the sherman was a light tank

So when you said it was a light tank, you were wrong
And much of what was used was smaller in WWII compared to today - the fearsome German 88mm gun would be regarded as way too small now


"As the United States approached entry into World War II,...the field manual stated:
The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower....its primary role is in offensive ops against rear areas"

M4 Sherman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

US Army doctrine wasn't to field a "break through" tanks like the Germans had or infantry support tanks like the British had. The US Army rejected a heavier tank as it would use too much resources to ship it across the Atlantic or Pacific.

you could tell they were literally using numbers to win the war

Tanks are not "easy" to knock out - unless operating with no infantry support
And in WWII production was maximized on everything from rifles to aircraft carriers

you are again trying to use a convention war as justification that irregular warfare will never work. despite the fact every single war post ww2 has proven my point, tanks are fairly easy to knock out by any determined force in irregular warfare.

Most wars since WWII have been low intensity or COIN wars
Tanks are not easy to knock out (unless employed without infantry support)

Yes the f-22 and our current subs do make nazi germanies equipment look like garbage, what universe do you live in?

Then why judge the M-4 Sherman medium tank as light by modern standards ?
Why did you make the comparison between today's M1 tank and WWII German tanks, of which you said:

this is why the m1a which makes the best panzer germany had during ww2 look like the most helpless pile of garbage

What universe were you living in ?

An invading force fighting a militia would in itself be a coin situation, that is the point, armor becomes near worthless

Heavy artillery too is less than useful in COIN operations
Nevertheless tanks are not exactly "worthless"

when the local population can use sniper tactics, ied's etc to disable armor and bottleneck infantry, hence why urban combat is often slow and dangerous

A use of tanks is their use as direct fire artillery, against fortified positions, in urban fighting

...entire doctrines on war changed after vietnam and again after iraq, in iraq military casualties stayed fairly in urban environments, but that was done by modifying doctrine to counter insurgen fighting, rather than your thinking that armor is king

What's your source on this ?

Military doctrine is always evolving, generally in response to technological advances

...armor is only as effective as an enemy allows it to be, and combined arms needs to use all of its equipment properly and in a disciplined manner, not just charging in...

Brilliant !
And I suppose that in another war, F-22 Raptors will only be effective as the enemy allows them to be right?
Total BS from someone who has never served in a military
Would the US military have ANY weapons systems that would be more effective than the enemy wanted to allow ?

In the Gulf War (1990-91) the US army trashed the much larger Iraqi army in 100 hours - did the Iraqis "allow" that ?

this is assuming that the militia had to improvise everything, if it had been a real war things like atgm's and mines likely would be handed to the militia to ensure defense

Makes no difference, the militia is steamrollered.

 

[ecofarm]

If DeSantis did such a thing it would be a Klan meeting. Maybe if it was only people from south of Orlando and east of Tampa.

 

[Felis Leo]

If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

Say there was some emergency, a hurricane, civil unrest, floods.

Militias are why we have the Second Amendment.

Yes, so long as equipment, arms and training are provided. I have never served in the military or been subject to military discipline, nor have I worked in emergency services.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, so long as equipment, arms and training are provided. I have never served in the military or been subject to military discipline, nor have I worked in emergency services.

No equipment or arms and your training is how to stomach MREs, then it's into the trenches. The criminal invasion is coming!

 

[Felis Leo]

No equipment or arms and your training is how to stomach MREs, then it's into the trenches. The criminal invasion is coming!

I’m sure as a desk jockey lawyer in my mid-thirties fighting off a dad bod, I’d be promoted to a Militia Major General in two weeks.

 

[ecofarm]

I’m sure as a desk jockey lawyer in my mid-thirties fighting off a dad bod, I’d be promoted to a Militia Major General in two weeks.

We're doing it commie style. You're a grunt and we ain't got guns. You can dig, can't ya.

 

[ecofarm]

Am I not doing the militia fantasy right? Fine.




Wolverines!

 

[Rich2018]

We're doing it commie style. You're a grunt and we ain't got guns. You can dig, can't ya.

Before you damn them "commies", they stopped and enemy force from taking their capital in 1941

Whereas the Americans in 1814 didn't.

 

[Glitch]

Not a militia, especially with the crazies in local government here lately. I do the Red Cross, so a disaster, yes, I'd probably show up. I'd help with humanitarian needs for sure.

We have, I believe, 4 or 5 militias organized in my state, and we have a sheriffs posse.

Why on earth would a militia be needed? I'm picturing our governor pissed off at the president right now. lol Calling in the militias.

We have so many national guards, military, etc, to help in states of emergency.

There is only one militia for each State (and the territory of Puerto Rico) and one federal militia. While every State has a militia, at least on paper, there are only 22 States and Puerto Rico that have active State militias. The National Guard, as the name implies, is part of the organized federal militia.

A bunch of citizens with firearms is not a militia, regardless of what they call themselves. All militias are established and funded by the government only. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the federal militia, and Governors are the Commander-In-Chief of their respective State militias.

If you are an able-bodied male who is at least 17 years old and under the age of 45, or a female who is a member of the National Guard, then you are part of the federal militia according to 10 U.S. Code § 246. Most States have similar requirements for their militias as well.

The Alaska State Defense Force militia was called by the Governor and was used in 2020 to help with COVID-19 testing in Alaska.

 

[Rich2018]

A bunch of citizens with firearms is not a militia, regardless of what they call themselves....

Actually it is

All militias are established and funded by the government only.

Nope, part of the purpose of state militia was precisely to defend against the government

If you are an able-bodied male who is at least 17 years old and under the age of 45, or a female who is a member of the National Guard, then you are part of the federal militia according to 10 U.S. Code § 246. Most States have similar requirements for their militias as well.

A member of the National Guard is a member of the US Army.