- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
I should be clear my post was more about what was thought about that at the origination of the nation. Which may, or may not be a personal view of how I'd like it to work today. So more to my focused on my view.
First, I think the 2nd amendment defenders are missing the boat. They readily neglect the first half of the 2nd amendment. The existence of a standing army has a detrimental effect on the 2nd amendment as that 'militia' no longer exists. Overthrowing one's own government really wasn't a serious consideration for debate. There's a couple of footnotes at best about that. And if you're one that think your AK-47 is going to save you from the tanks, RPGs, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons the gov could throw at you, you're more emotional than rational about this question.
well... i reckon i may be more emotional than other men... but i also know that no invading army has successfully sustained armed conflict against guerrilla warfare, and id suspect the US military would stand even less of a chance in their home environs... after all they'd be ours too...