Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScottKuma
I like the sentiment, but a populace/resistance armed with inferior weaponry will have a HELL of a time against a modern army or police force, especially where the opposing force has little qualm against "civilian" losses.
|
somewhat off topic, but i'll answer. though we, as the populace, may not currently be as well armed as most police or even military, there are two practical things to take in to account. Those police and military do not want to die also, and some or most may not be able to stomach firing at american citizens. The second thing to take in to account is the horrible PR and reaction that would take place if things like kent state, or bigger, were to happen again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Now, I realize it's not practical to give tanks, nukes, etc. to the populace, so as a Constitutionist, my question is: Given the fact that it was supposed to protect the populace against internal and external tyranny, has the second amendment become obsolete?
|
The gun control/anti-gunners/statists want you to think that. For nearly 100 years, they have made great steps in to making you think that the government and its forces are subservient yet authoritative and at the same time have whittled away the peoples ability to retain power. By making you believe that the government can always be trusted, because your elected representatives are also 'the people', and that there is no way the government could ever become a dictatorship (since you can still 'vote'), while at the same time flipping the coin and saying that the government needs to tell you what can and can't be done because 'people' are too irresponsible and untrustworthy to keep all of their 'rights' anymore.
a vicious circle that will eventually have drastic consequences.