[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Many people can do without living near an ocean. To be fair, personally do live [relatively] close to one.

And the United States has one of the largest coastlines in the world (even excluding Alaska's).

But that coastline might not be so big if China or India (or some multi-national coalition) attack and the United States doesn't have the population to defend the nation.

Would you have the population wither to 100 million, or even 30 million as in Canada, or 20 million as in Australia? You'd have square miles and square miles of prime property then, but would be encouraging a takeover by a hostile, foreign power.

A large population is helpful not only economically, but also militarily. Ideally 100 million armed American citizens would be able to repel an invasion, but they'd still be weaker than 1.5 billion armed Americans.

[Cyropaedia]

That's just ridiculous. No one is talking about going back down to a population of 30 million. 200 to 250 million is just fine. And that amount would provide all the military protection necessary.

Exactly who in the hell is going to invade us that we will need 1.5 BILLION armed citizens in order to repel them...??

Aliens from outer space...?

[kabar]

A large population is helpful not only economically, but also militarily. Ideally 100 million armed American citizens would be able to repel an invasion, but they'd still be weaker than 1.5 billion armed Americans.

Nonsense. Why do you think China and India are trying to reduce their population growth? If 1.5 billion Americans seem like a good idea to you, how about 3 billion? The USG's pro-population growth policy expressed thru legal immigration should be put to a vote by the American people. Do we want a population of almost 500 million within the next 60 years? I don't, especially given the problems associated with assimilation and massive demographic shifts.

[penowa]

"Ideally 100 million armed American citizens would be able to repel an invasion, but they'd still be weaker than 1.5 billion armed Americans."

How about ZERO armed citizens if we allow the amount of immigration you're talking about? If we lose our sovereignty once the elites have their way with making this place that used to be America into something entirely different, a third world hellhole peopled by slave labor, you don't really believe the 2nd Amendment will survive, do you?

[CottonBall]

Would you have the population wither to 100 million, or even 30 million as in Canada, or 20 million as in Australia? You'd have square miles and square miles of prime property then, but would be encouraging a takeover by a hostile, foreign power.

So, Canada is in danger of a takeover? Funny, I hadn't heard that. Or about the Aussie's as well.

Your point is ludicrous.

[Age of Reason]

A large population is helpful not only economically, but also militarily. Ideally 100 million armed American citizens would be able to repel an invasion, but they'd still be weaker than 1.5 billion armed Americans.

We won't have to wait for a foreign country to conquer us.

By the time we have 1.5 billion citizens, we would no longer be a free country anyway.