A thread in which I rebut the logical fallacies and errors of an anti-RKBA diatribe

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. So, it is your contention that the government is willing to turn its greatest weapons of war against

the citizenry and for this reason the citizenry ought to disarm.

Iraq is a nation a third of the size of the state of Texas and much of it was uninhabitable, i.e. desert. Much of its strategically vital terrain follows the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. At the height of the anti-US insurgency fewer than 50,000 insurgents were met by over 200,000 US troops. That effort was the extent of the US government's ability to control the space of Iraq. There were no more troops to send. But keep in mind there were no massive tank assaults or aerial bombardment campaigns of the sort anti-RKBA types dream of.

Assuming the US military remained wholly loyal to whatever despot demanded they bomb and shell US cities it would find itself attempting to control the entirety of the US territory with its myriad of terrain types and arable landscape; not to mention a border infamous for its permeability. There are over 50 million gun owners -- 1,000 times larger than the Iraqi insurgency. Considering the recent refusal of as many as 100,000 citizens in Connecticut to register their semi-automatic rifles the pool from which the opposition could draw seems staggering. It certainly seems to be the sort of thing that only fools would fantasize about.

Stop talking silliness. No president is going to order a tank assault on a major US metropolitan area and if (s)he did they would be exactly the sort of president that ought to be opposed.