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

[jeff47]

13. No, my contention is they can no longer serve the purpose the founders intended.

If the theory behind the 2nd amendment is armed citizens are a check on government power, that is no longer possible.

Citizens armed with the weapons that are available commercially are not a threat to the government.

Iraq is a nation a third of the size of the state of Texas...

Invasion is not revolution.

In an invasion met with an insurrection, the invaders have to want to keep fighting. That can only last so long before the invader loses political will and goes home.

In a revolution, the military is already home. There is nowhere else for them to "go back to". As a result, the political will of the government does not fade as in an invasion.

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.

Hey look! It's the lengthy guerilla war scenario I mentioned.

The despot says "The terrorists are in that city. They are doing and have done terrible things to your friends and family. (And since this is a lengthy guerilla war, it's quite likely that terrible things have actually been done.) Go get them".

Exactly the same way despots use their militaries in other nations.

No president is going to order a tank assault on a major US metropolitan area

And no revolutionary group is going to be able to take a large metropolitan area.

That's the point - the government is too well armed to be overthrown militarily. As a result, the founder's analysis is outdated. The world is not the same as in 1789.