Mr Khan said:
That's the big key: i don't think the founding fathers foresaw the industrialization and professionalization of warfare which really didn't come full-swing until the 20th century. For the longest time (and this still applies in weak states), it was possible for an armed citizenry, if united in its cause, to easily overthrow the government through force of numbers: sure a standing army is better trained, but when the basics of what a standing army is capable of and what a peasant militia is capable of are about the same, the peasant militia can outweigh the standing army, sure. But in modern warfare, the ability to make substantive gains against such a professional military is nigh-impossible unless you yourself are a professional military. The only reason rebel movements really survive are because of political protections surrounding them: a lack of will to eradicate them, or a lack of will to cause the civilian collateral damage necessary for eradication (for instance, why the US and its allies didn't just firebomb Baghdad out of existence. That would have gotten rid of any bad guys, for sure). But when push really comes to shove, the government will WIN, and quite handily (see Chechnya, where you did see a modern state gain the will to really crush a determined, entrenched insurgency. It was horriffic, but a demonstration for my purpose). |
It's more accurate to say.... the Founding fathers didn't see a need for a powerful standing army. They knew that it was possible for a standing army to gain the power to eaisly wipe out Miltia... and it was this specific fear that led to the second ammendment in the first place. Even back then there were plenty of weapons that required a decent sized industry to produce. For example, canons, naval fleets etc.
Also, i'm not sure i'd say Chechyna was crushed.
In a theoretical founding father world. Parents would train their children at a very young age to use weapons, and everyone would know how to use a military grade rifle at least... like say Switzerland.
More expensive equipment would likely be taken on by richer people or just community groups (when fortunes die/areas want to show off/feel patriotic), whose power would be kept in check by there only being small amounts of them, and it being somewhat impractical to use larger weapons on a larger well armed populace.
More or less keeping other governments and their own in check. The only check against the militias really being that they would need government permission to conduct offensive invasions. (Or so i assume, i could be wrong.)
Sort of like Galia in Valkryia Chronicles from what I gather from how they're government works. Everyone is trained in weaponry at a very young age and everybody owns weaponry. There is a small standing army, that more or less handles things until war is declared on them, then suddenly the whole nation rises. With the only real difference there being that the draft is theoretically mandatory?
I'm not actually sure if all the tanks in that game are government owned or family owned. It SEEMS some are family owned because I want to say the Tank commander guy came from a family of tank commanders?
It actually could probably be a really effective. It seemed to work decenetly for Switzerland who was able to ignore many wars.
That said, i'd question if large parts of the country could handle the mentality for this kind of self defense anymore. It's hard to imagine large swarths of California effectivly be willing to train their children.
Theoretically if the spirit of the second ammendment surivived as far, basic military rifle training would of likely been a mandatory class for public schools. Though it's hard to imagine that passing today in a number of more liberal states.
It's a shame, because it could probably be done quite effectlily, cut the military budget down to basically nothing but R&D, air defenses and a Navy freeing up lots of money for welfare and tax breaks with the added bonus of basically making the USA a more isolationist country who would only intervene in cases where the general populace felt upset by actions.
Abuse of major weapons would seem to be limited by the fact that EVERYONE would have them. I want to say switzerland is another example here? There is one country where basially every adult male is forced to by law to own a military rifle and keep it inside of their house... and these things are basically never used in crimes there.
So when the US did go to war, it'd likely be for more Humantarian reasons... and their ability to prosecute wars vs countries who can't strike the US continent back would basically be limited to popular opinion and people volenteering to go over and fight those wars.
