you can thank the National Firearms Act for that.

It created disticntions between Comercial / private firearms and Law Enforcement/Military Firearms

For all the criticism of multicultural nations a few minutes ago, it sounds like you're all talking about Switzerland.

no, the US second amendment

Oh, I know

But Switzerland does kinda what you're describing

Swiss Confederation's Army's prmary unit is the Militia Regiment.

And being that the Swiss government issues all gear to their conscripts they loan out STGs, body armor and uniforms

Swiss men can buy their STG after service from the government after the fun switch gets pulled.

Since Switzerland doesn't permit private ownership of an unmodified current-issue service rifle (and has other limitations like registration, storage laws, ammunition limitations, etc), their firearms laws are effectively more restrictive than the US.

The Swiss model doesn't make a lot of sense for the US anyway. The Swiss are issued equipment, including rifle and ammunition, by their government to fight a foreign invader. The US militia on the other hand, is almost certainly to be used against the government, not by the government.

Look into the Finish firearms laws, Forgotten Weapons and InrangeTV did a video on it at Finish Brutality last year

The first war the US fought was the Whiskey Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

@Atkins I'm not so sure. The first use of firearms in the American colonies was generally in defense of local towns and farms against attacks and small militant raids. Firearms are always characterized with "the wild west" because having a reliable firearm was important for both hunting and defense of the home and village.

There are still analogous threats (cartels for example).

The only land forces that ever posed a direct threat to the US and declared war were Britian/Canada (1812, which went so well that Washington burned) and Mexico (Mexican-American war, where Mexico actually had the larger military at the time). Neither is a serious threat at the moment, but I wouldn't discount the role of firearms for training and deterrence.

```Christian News, a Lutheran journal published in New Haven, Missouri, USA, under the above caption published the following item in its Feb. 4, 2002 issue: "In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. "Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other. "Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. "Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. " 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "```

I don't think we face foreign invasion in the foreseeable future. It's just not a credible threat. The only credible martial threats to my person are from actors already residing in the United States.

the only likely invasion in the united states in the foreseeable future is from south america

but that wont be a typical invasion

i also believe actors within borders pose threat. what is most problematic are the ppl that don't understand they can be easily pushed into radicalization due to their extreme stances.
peeps are literally single-ing themselves out to be tools for more persuasive individuals. not enough self-estimation

Just a thought, couldn't there be a criminal charge against Nathan Philipps for Assault??

here in Germany it should be possible

Well germany's fucked then

Depends on how loud the Drum was

Foreign invasion is always a constant threat regardless of the nation

Having the large amount of firearms poses a final problem for any theoretical invasion of the US

Ironically the US cant solve the problem which would be its greatest asset in a defensive war on its home soil

You say that like the numbers of firearms are the problem though.
It seems to stem more from society then the number of firearms.

yep. it's cultural and behavioral

The threat of invasion by the state is a bigger threat than invasion by a foreign nation.

yep

The Issue I was referring to was a prolonged insurgency

rather than prolific gun violence

Outright invasion isn't a threat in the current climate, a slow invasion and then continual terrorist style insurgent attacks are more of a concern and more likely to effect regular citizens, which is exaclty what we should try to avoid.

Tightening borders helps prevent these risks.

Hmm

u know it is too late for that cus it allready happend? they learned their lesons in WW1 and WW2 to take it slowly

Actually, industrial war is exactly why an outright invasion is unlikely since it'll justify escalation which can have globally apocalyptic consequences

Instead, a belligerent nation will fund and support a proxy terrorist group that they expect to become rogue (or pretend they didn't to their superiors)

Speaking of WWII America, do you think we have the capability (as a nation) to mobilize at the scale we could back in that time?