Quoted:
I'm not worried about a technological power (or Da Gummint).  I'm worried about looters, starving urbanites, and being unable to maintain food/water/shelter/meds.  Again, some people are thinking "Red Dawn", when they should be thinking "One Second After".

I'd much rather have a community-based organization of folks who can help maintain local security, order, and infrastructure, when 9-1-1 stops responding and the food trucks stop arriving at Publix...than any fantasy of stay behind guerrillas.

Quoted:
amusingly, this is somewhat similar to the overall organization of the left in the US, with the truly violent activists supported institutionally by academia, the media, and the bureaucracy.

Quoted:
When considering this angle, it needs to be taken into account that most insurgencies in history have been defeated.

Quoted:
I respectfully think you misunderstood my point.

A bunch of fudds that are "friends", and get together every now and then, is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about individuals in this country, who have "true" friends, that they treat as family. That camp, prepare, and train as best they can.

ETA: I am well versed in the ways the way the thread is going. I do shoot, and understand commands and tactics.  A lot more than you'd like to believe.

I haven't been there; I haven't done that. I regret not doing it.  Doesn’t mean I can't, or won't do it.

What Men refused to submit their arms, in 1775? Who committed a serious act of destroying property by throwing it into the sea?

Quoted:
The founders intent was citizens be able to arm, train, and organize in their own groups or militias independent of any government.

Quoted:
You forgot the part of having no accountability to anyone in regards to their assignments or actions.  They should also appoint their officers based upon social standing and or whoever brings the most beer and hot dogs to the meetings.

Quoted:
UW, hit and run. Harassment, ambush and interdiction.

Quoted:
This. A militia in the 21st century isn't standing toe to toe with any sort or conventional force with any reasonable likelihood of success. It may end up doing some scouting or other intel work for a friendly force or will be working as a resistance network. Bombs, sabotage, assassination, and the like.

Quoted:
IF a militia is ever needed again- either to repel a foreign entity or to resist a tyrannical domestic one- the fighting will not be anything like you see in movies or videogames.  The enemy will have vastly superior technology and weapons to choose from.  The only way to fight an enemy like that is guerilla warfare.  You don't attack a hardened military installation, you follow troops home and slaughter them in their sleep.

Yes its dishonorable.  But thats how you win.  Do you think the Brits thought we were fighting honorably back in the 1770s?  Honor is a useless buzzword that is used by old farts or young dumbasses to romanticize things.  But reality is ugly and uncaring.  But its reality that matters, not how moving of a speech your priest says over your grave when you die.

To steal a line from my favorite book series: You know nothing of war. War is dark. Black as pitch. It is not a God. It does not laugh or weep. It rewards neither skill nor daring. It is not a trial of souls, nor the measure of wills. Even less is it a tool, a means to some womanish end. It is merely the place where the iron bones of the earth meet the hollow bones of men and break them....

.... So long as you continue to wage war with your hearts and not your intellect, you are doomed.  

first part is a direct quote, second part is paraphrased.  Context, this guy is trying to convince a bunch of stick-up-their-ass knights and nobles that their way of fighting (caring bout honor) is gonna get them slaughtered by guys who don't play by the same rules.

Quoted:
If the militia is ad hoc, then we're already talking failure right there.  A militia needs to be organized, properly trained, have standards, have actual officers with real authority, be subject to military discipline, be properly armed and equipped, be uniformed, have common standards, have a chain of command, etc.

Swiss militia units have access to machine guns, grenades, artillery, combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, etc.  The just don't take that stuff home with them, but rather, they check it out at their unit's armoury when needed for service or training.  U.S. militia units in the past also tended to issue weapons from an armoury rather than be exclusively "run what ya' brung".  While there was a legal requirement to procure arms for service (which within decades became obsolete, since it was specific to flintlock smoothbores and pre-Minie ball flintlock rifles, and also called for bore sizes different from what soon became the U.S. standard), typically it was inadequate to rely upon that, and States maintained armouries for which to equip the militia, and they sent period reports to the Federal government regarding what they had.

If one is to actually bother with creating doctrine, there needs to be a militia worth a damn.  This means uniform Federal standards, with States raising organized militias of a useful size that are actually armed and which meet these standards, which should be of a sound nature.  In order to raise and maintain a suitable militia, conscription is required, as it almost always is when it comes to the militia, regardless of what country one is talking about.  The legal basis for such conscription already exists, fortunately.

What is this militia for?  Well, you have different core missions.  One is to act as a check against the Federal government if it were to engage in tyranny or usurpation of power (it already does, but let's say it is to deter something even more egregious); it can also form a basis for unofficial resistance if a State were to become tyrannical.  Being part of the domestic system of checks and balances, giving the public the means to engage in the ultima ratio is one of the most traditional functions in free countries for the militia, including the U.S. and colonies in the past.  This includes resistance to regular and reserve armed forces, as well as armed civilian organizations (such as LEAs).

Another core function is defence against foreign military threats acting against any of the United States or their colonies.

It also needs to be able to deal with internal armed threats, such as rebellion, insurrection, terrorism, etc.

Dealing with natural and man-made disasters (including firefighting), providing relief, search and rescue, maintaining law and order, etc. is also important.

Yet another mission is providing security for places, persons, and events (Alaska's militia, for example, is used to provide security for the Iditarod; California's militia helps provide security and MP functions for Los Alamitos AAF and the JTC).

Enforcement of civilian laws is also an important function, and this can include providing manpower or special capabilities to aid civilian LE, dealing with riots and unrest, dealing with civilian LE that are breaking the law, and more.  A great example of when they militia would be useful in this context is the Dorner incident.  Instead of depriving the area of large amounts of LE, making a bunch of LE work overtime at great public expense, etc., the militia could have been used to provide most of the manpower, with civilian LE simply taking the lead with a few personnel, with the rest of the LEOs continuing their usual jobs.  Also, the Constitution allows Congress to authorize the President to use the militia to enforce Federal laws.

Border security is yet another potential mission, to include coastal and air defence.

Guarding prisoners and dealing with prison riots and such that go beyong what civilian authorities can handle is another mission.

In the case of occupation, whether by domestic forces in a tyrannical context, foreign forces, or internal military threats which result in, say, rebels taking controul or territory, the militia can also engage in guerilla warfare and train other citizens to do the same.  Sabotage before it gets to this point is also a potential mission (the Swiss, for example task their militia with destroying things that could be of use to the enemy wer ethe enemy to seize an area).

In theory, if suitably trained, with safeguards to prevent excessive depletion, during a major war like WWII the militia could potentially also serve as the basis for raising an army if the NG and reserves are not sufficient, with minimal time and effort needed for training, allowing for rapid raising of such a force and without the inadequate training which led to much higher casualties than were necessary during WWII.  In essence, it could be a citizen army-in-being.

Older personnel could also take part in civil defence functions, maintain equipment, and such.

So the militia may have to deal with regular, reserve, and irregular troops; insurgents; terrorists; rebels; criminals; rioters; prisoners; armed civilian organizations; and disasters.  The rifle squad in infantry units should be equipped accordingly.  This does necessitate more than small arms.  It would probably be best to stick with the TO&E used by either the Army or Marine Corps for such a thing, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.  Non-infantry units should still have the capacity to act as infantry if necessary; the militia should, ideally, have a doctrine of "every man a rifleman" (like the Swiss do) and perhaps "everyman a grenadier" (such as by utilizing rifle grenades).

I do like the Swiss post-war model in use until they adopted the "Soldier 95" model in the 1990s, which radically altered the militia's character.  It, in turn, is an evolution of a model going back centuries.  War Secretary Knox and President Washington both supported Federal legislation making this model the basis for militia regulations in the U.S., but Congress was only willing to pass the Milita Act of 1792.  In this model, all able-bodied male citizens are potentially liable for service (the doctrine currently via the unorganized militia concept), and with today's population, a certain percentage would be required to serve in the militia from age 20-60 (for privates; officers and NCOs to 65); Knox and Washington proposed giving some credit for Federal military service, and past a certain point, removing any but emergency obligations from veterans, which has some merit.  Those 20-36 (and any volunteers under 20) would be in a first tier, those 36-49 in a second tier, and those 49-60 in the third tier, with officers and NCOs all being first tier but assigned as needed to the tiers of private soldiers. Main maneuver forces would be from the first tier, supporting forces that could be used for more static defence would be in the second tier, and forces engaged in rear support, civil defence, etc. would be drawn mostly from the third tier.

Upon being indoctrinated, a person would have to go to a recruit school, go to a specialist school for technical jobs, and then go through periodic refresher courses, which decrease in frequency and duration in each tier.  Technical jobs would go to recruits already trained or knowledgeable in those fields, or undergoing training or education in them, so that the militia would not need to train them except with regard to those things specific to militia service (the private sector essentially does the training).  No pensions, 401(k)s, etc.  No medical benefits outside of actual service.  Per diem pay for E-1 starts at about what jurors get today, going up based on rank.  Pay is supplemented by income loss insurance (or operating grants for business owners); those who do not experience income loss only get the base pay.  All of this massively reduces personnel costs, according to the Swiss experience.  Something that could be useful is transferring discharged NG personnel to the militia to incorporate their experience.  Providing for local and independent charters could also be useful, with locally chartered units being able to come under local authority (which is how it was done in Britain and to some extent in the colonies).  Small arms and equipment would be maintained at home.

Quoted:
Even a cursory glance of the history of the militia demonstrates that this assertion is false.  The militia in Britain was controulled by local governments and, before feudalism was done away with, the nobles, and could be place into national service to defend the country.  The colonies inherited their militia tradition from Britain.  The militia was an institution of colonial and local governments which also could at times be subject to national service to defend British colonies.  Once the colonies declared independence, they became State and local institutions.  This fact is embodied in our Constitution, which leaves the militia in the controul of the States, but permits it to be called into Federal service for a limited variety of emergencies and to also be Federally regulated (with States maintaining controul over officer commissions, so that the militia could not be taken over by the Feds).  The Constitution, of course, is the product of our Founders, so obviously the fact was known to them.  The militia was never some ad hoc body composed of armed rabble organized by the "people" as they saw fit.  That's a complete fabrication of history.

Quoted:
When considering this angle, it needs to be taken into account that most insurgencies in history have been defeated.

Quoted:
amusingly, this is somewhat similar to the overall organization of the left in the US, with the truly violent activists supported institutionally by academia, the media, and the bureaucracy.

Quoted:
The founders intent was citizens be able to arm, train, and organize in their own groups or militias independent of any government.

Quoted:
Please note that I am a self appointed Grand Admiral.  I prefer my proper title of Lord Grand Admiral in formal settings.

Quoted:
Interesting question.  US Army (me thinks) tends to call down artillery fire support or air support to destroy the opponent.  This worked during a blitzkrieg for the Germans until they ran into Stalingrad where Soviet Army Commander Chuikov decided to break that interarms cooperation by closing the distance to belt buckle to belt buckle.  The Palestinians have done the same thing with the Israelis.  Instead of hit and run, they hit, get in close and inflict casualties at close quarters.  It was very demoralizing for the Israelis.  Here the bolded USMC doctrine works well as the Marines are trained in close combat.

Traditionally the American militia runs.  They did that a lot during the American Revolution.  Exceptions would be King's Mountain where a Tory force was destroyed by pure militia forces and Cowpens where American commander Daniel Morgan counted on the militia to run.  "Give them two volleys boys and then you can go home."  During the War of 1812, militia performed very poorly and even at New Orleans (think south bank) it was useless.  On the other hand at the same battle, the Kentucky Detached Militia did well behind its cotton bail fortifications where Jackson himself was.  It also did well during the Siege of Fort Meigs.  Until a militia is better organized and trained, I expect them to run.  A militia is better suited planting IEDs if it has to fight and support (harbor, succor, protect rear areas) for full time regular army than open direct conflict.

Quoted:
Having several months of preps encompassing all life sustaining items is easy to do even on meager salaries.

Siege threat from looters is minimal. Good OPSEC should be to keep a low profile, and if that fails 1 guy with an AR could repel 50 starving assholes pretty easy. If you have more than 50 storming the gates, the world has crumbled and you should have left the castle.

Trying to apply a militia component to disaster relief is tarded and best left to the National Gaurd and fed money.

Quoted:
Lol