Our Second Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia", which is many times put up by the left in a total misreading of the rest of the text. Widespread gun-ownership by our people prevents two things. First, foreign invasion. This has been spoken of many times when questioned why the Japanese did not invade our mainland during WWII. An un-verified remark by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto points to why. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Whether he said it or not, the sentiment is correct. An invader would have a tough time crossing our shores in any conflict. Those "well-regulated militias" would pop out of every corner in the country to buttress our military might. This is exactly what was meant by that phrase in the Second Amendment. Militias are ad hoc, and only built as needed. But the populous should be armed as a preparatory measure should the need to form them arise.
Second, an armed populous is a prophylactic against the tyranny of our own government -- something that is always a real danger in any form of governance. The first step of any tyrannical government in history was to disarm their populous -- and with disastrous results for the people. The most horrific mass-murders in the world led by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot began with these very measures. To think this could never happen in America is fallacy.
The principle totally aside, whenever I hear this argument, it becomes clear to me how much more confidence people have in the effect these "well-regulated" militias would genuinely have in a combat scenario than I do.
Of course I hope it never comes to pass and we don't get the opportunity to find out, but I'm not convinced that a rag tag bunch of cowboy (and cowgirl and cowpeople) yahoos—I'm not calling them stupid, just the personality type who would jump at the chance and has been dreaming about this—who are often big on buying "tactical" gear and living a pseudo-LARP, with no cohesive training and/or operations experience...wouldn't get in the way and
impede the organized actions of the U.S. defense forces who know what they're doing.
There have been several examples from active shooter situations where some bystander attempts to "help" the first responders, and police desperately try to shoo them away so they won't give away a position, compromise a sightline, create confusion, etc.
Now scale up that same type of person/scenario 1000x—if not more—and I think these militias would be the Keystone Kops out there. Lots of friendly fire accidents. My suspicion is that foreign invaders would go on reddit or Facebook where these militias and "Patriots" often coordinate, and intercept
so many compromising strategic communications.
You can't tell me that every other militia member
wouldn't have a geotagged Instagram post of them geared up to the gills with wraparound sunglasses and an AR-15 and a caption like:
Die like a Lion, or Live Like a lamb. #countryfirst #truepatriot #wereready #America #doyourduty
Heck, people do that
now, when there's no imminent threat of invasion!
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say I think there is a
zero percent chance that critical information would be kept confidential. Especially without a cohesive, well-defined chain of command that enforces accountability and cohesiveness.
In my estimation, the invaders would just have to go on Twitter trending, scoop up a few hashtags like #militiasriseup, determine militia positions...and then send in an aerial assault that would render all the ARs, Glocks, Sig Sauers and M&Ps that the militias have into sticks in a missile fight, turning that kind of not-that-well-regulated militia defense into ash within minutes.