"Head shots, head shots."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. Do you believe the Iraq insurgency could be suppressed?

Because, near as I can tell the US military brought its every resource to bear against an insurgency that never numbered more than a couple dozen thousand in an area that was at best the size of a single mid-sized state. I also have doubts that this (presumably fictional) tyrant would enjoy the solidarity within the ranks that accompanied the fight against Saddam and, in turn, the violent jihadists.

However, I find this to be the most curious of all arguments. It assumes a government willing to unleash every weapon of war against the populace -- and then begs the populace to disarm lest this (presumably fictional) tyrant be roused in his anger. Any person that would unleash tanks and bombers against Americans in their own homes is exactly the sort of bastard who needs to know there are 100 million guns out there -- somewhere.

I hope you won't feign naiveté to suggest the government should be implicitly trusted in all things. The Klan holding offices within the police and government before setting out to lynch Americans, Pinkertons deputized to break strikes and violent corruption in Athens, Tennessee are all stark examples of when government has become the enemy of the people -- and the people went on to successfully defended themselves. True, tanks and bombers weren't employed in these instances but then it never came to such extremes because it quickly became apparent such a cost was higher than the not-so-fictional tyrants were willing to pay.

After all, there are a hundred million guns out there -- somewhere.