I mean…. That’s part of the point. It’s perhaps a little far fetched, but yes, in part an armed citizenry is meant as a balance of power- and some might point to Americas military might and say “what good would a bunch of farmers or hill people with small arms do against that..?” I would then point at Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam…. Let’s just say that the idea of an organized materially disadvantaged force posing a threat to the US military isn’t a hypothetical- and that presumably many tools used by the military wouldn’t be prudent to employ on their home soil.
But ignoring the far fetched scenario of some mass conversion to totalitarian government (although of January 6th had gone differently, the more liberally minded American citizen may have suddenly felt differently about having a well armed and like minded militia had treasonous extremists managed to install their illegitimate dictator via coup and Liberal Americans suddenly found themselves in front of a run away train without brakes towards far right totalitarianism..)
That scenario brings up the slightly less far fetched (especially in light of recent trends) topic of civil war. It might not be super great if a civil war were to break out, to not have some form of militia reserves. Depending on the ideological or demographic breakdowns of such a war, certain regions could find themselves greatly disadvantaged as the bulk of the American military can be found in certain places- and if the “good guys” or the side you’d favor in such a conflict doesn’t happen to fit the demographic that might claim a significant portion of materiel or ideological loyalty of a significant military force- having someone to represent and defend you might be prudent.
There is also the far fetched but possible scenario of foreign invasion. Although somewhat poorly supported by historic precedent, geographically mitigated, and arguably contradicted by foreseeable probabilities of politics and tactical advantage- to assume invulnerability is a hubris that tends to incite ruin. Now that DOES have historical precedent in a long list of nations and empires that assumed that they were too big or powerful or connected or feared etc. to need to take precautions and found that their undoing.
Of course a proper militia can also be of great help outside of such scenarios. In recent decades several high profile and devastating disasters, natural and man made, have taken huge human tolls and stressed or overwhelmed the ability of oficial resources to respond. In some cases mismanagement or other issues have delayed or inhibited help. A large well regulated local militia or joint operating command of several regional militias could have proved highly beneficial in the events surrounding hurricane katrina for example. Militia volunteers keeping peace and order, searching for and rescuing survivors, offering first aid, taking up tasks that could relieve official organizations or fill gaps in coverage or response times, organizing and administrating shelters, resource programs, hospitals or aid stations etc. and later coordinating with official organizations.
A militia is not strictly a martial organization anymore than the uniformed military is. National guard, reservists, and regular military routinely offer services and resources as needed to the civil good. National guard are often used for disaster relief or to assist in areas and times of instability etc. Military corps of engineers often work on civilian construction projects and relief efforts and various military medical personnel and resources are often leveraged in times and places of civilian need. Military pilots perform rescues and arial recon or scouting such as finding survivors, spotting safe or clear routes, identifying hazards, assessing situation or damage and assisting in identifying areas of most severe impact and such.
There is no reason that militias cannot operate similarly and militias can, historically often have, and where in practice still do at times coordinate and work with official organizations.
Of course when we think of a militia we either tend to think of the so called militias that are perhaps a stones throw or less away from being bumpkin extremists, borderline cultists, or domestic terrorists; or we think of some “in the army now” group of burn outs or rejects with dreams of being Rambo but who are out of shape, unskilled, disorganized, tactically inept and ineffectual- basically we think of crazy radicals or a group of idiot drinking buddies who like to carry guns and play GI JOE. There are those groups, but that isn’t what a militia has to be or what all of them are.
So I mean… yes.. maybe not everyone that decides to call themselves a militia should get a pass to do so, but also maybe don’t write off the importance or potential relevance of militias.
There are plenty of useless or worse than useless teachers in the world too, lots of foolish people who seem not to know anything. Does that mean we don’t need or should t have teachers or public schools? We should probably keep toy mix schools and teachers even if there are some bad eggs. Maybe that’s a good reason to focus on ways to try and make sure there are less bad eggs to give those things bad names and try to make sure the ones there are actually are competent and potentially beneficial.. but yeah.
Of course when we think of a militia we either tend to think of the so called militias that are perhaps a stones throw or less away from being bumpkin extremists, borderline cultists, or domestic terrorists; or we think of some “in the army now” group of burn outs or rejects with dreams of being Rambo but who are out of shape, unskilled, disorganized, tactically inept and ineffectual- basically we think of crazy radicals or a group of idiot drinking buddies who like to carry guns and play GI JOE. There are those groups, but that isn’t what a militia has to be or what all of them are.
So I mean… yes.. maybe not everyone that decides to call themselves a militia should get a pass to do so, but also maybe don’t write off the importance or potential relevance of militias.