In actual coups, it's often a small cadre of well-connected higher officers who do the work. It's not the whole military. By the time the whole military (or country) realises what's happened, it's already happened and there's not a lot they can do.

Meanwhile Spain suffered an attempted coup in 1981 [0] while mandatory military service was still in place [1]. The conscripts did not play a role in protecting democracy.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_attempt

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Service_(Spain)

And there is a very real economic cost to mandatory military service. It only makes sense in the context of a small country (in terms of population) bordering a large aggressive neighbor, such as Finland or (possibly) Canada.

Artillery and tanks will have some kind of professional officer though.

In both cases I very much doubt that people lacking the training, organisation and weaponry of the professional military will be able to beat them in contemporary circumstances.

I realise military service means people have some training, but as much as the professionals? What about air cover, heavy weaponry, communications? What about timing - a coup might be over before conscripts can react.

Most of all, is there historical evidence this works?

They can at least shoot machine guns and carbines, use artillery etc. Even elite units such as jaeger troops/commandos are ordinary people, not necessarily people who stay for longer than their military service.

Large, permanent, professional internal and external security forces were not something the framers of the Constitution trusted, and the Second Amendment was, as much as anything, a way to reduce the temptation to rely on those instead of summoning a posse (for law enforcement) or conscription (for war, when necessary), rather than a way to prevent conscription.

They ultimately failed at that, too, though.

> were not something the framers of the Constitution trusted

If you follow the reasoning through those two claims appear to be at odds. That said I think there's plenty of evidence that your first claim is false depending on how you define the particulars of "deny the state".

No, the claim that the purpose of the second amendment was to assure that the state could rely on a citizen militia for internal and external security instead of denying them that ability and forcing them to rely on professional forces is not at all at odds with the claim that large professional internal and external security forces were not something that the framers trusted.

Your excerpting a verb phrases from each of the two claims to claim a conflict while ignoring the rest of the claims may suggest the source of your misreading -- because you seen to think that the thing that I said that the 2A was not meant to deny the states was the same thing the framers didn't trust, rather than something that was an alternative to it.

However in context it seems wrong because regardless of intent one of the effects of an armed populace is that a sufficiently unpopular conscription is going to carry serious physical risks for those in power. With regards to the framers I'd expect such a scenario to be classified as government tyranny and marked NOTABUG.

I'd suggest that the answer to the person you responded to is that the conscriptions that happened in the US weren't sufficiently unpopular to motivate such drastic measures.

Generally such conscripts realize they're dooming their family to at best prison and at worst dying in the raid on their home.

This is the first I hear that this would be the motivation.

The main motivation is that for a small country like Sweden to have enough manpower to defend itself adequately, conscription is necessary.