How do you rank second amendment rights?

[SteveW]

68. Thanks for the complement...

I'm not sure if I agree with you here:

"Guns against the state is a non-starter. Nice idea-but useless."

Though there is no way to prove this, our "state" may have moved long ago in even more authoritarian means of control had the population not been so well-armed.

I believe that if a state becomes increasingly illegitimate, and unable to provide for common services or provide protections to the people, then the armed civilian population will become an increasingly strong force to initiate change. Just as war is no longer considered "symmetrical," the failing state cannot be seen as symmetrical; it could deteriorate in terms repression, failure to provide civil protections, and failure to enact clear and publicly-expressed policies; the failure can be regional, the failure can be passive (as in public services).

I would point out that most of the wars/military conflicts going on now and in the recent past have been between heavily-armed powers, even super powers, on the one hand, and civilian populations and militia equipped with light infantry weapons, small explosives, and traps, on the other. No battleships, helicopters, jets, nukes, or drones for these guys. The outcomes of these conflicts are mixed, but certainly not "useless."