- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,490
- 32,453
- 2,300
IF ....
You have a constitutional right to wage war on equal footing with the United States government then you would have the right to own surface to air missiles, nuclear submarines, etc ....
Do you think you have that right?
nuff said.
You do NOT have the right to maintain weaponry in order to wage war on the U.S. government. The notion is beyond absurd. I can't believe people capable of upright walking would even try to argue the point.
The concept during the time of the consitution limited people to arms. There was no right to artillery, and that was a crucial part of military strategy at the time. We also did not have the right to our own navies (which require artillery to be effective).
The idea is that a population does not need crew served weapons to outright win a fight against a corrupt government. The idea is to make it expensive enough and dangerous enough for said corrupt government that they never even try. To do that at a minimum you need weapons at least comparable to what a standard infantryman would carry. A revolver and a shotgun really dont meet that, a semi-automatic rifle does.
Ask our military how effective an insurgency armed with basic weapons can be, now add the fact that a portion of that military would switch sides during any insurrection.
We live in a time of stable governments. Why does everyone assume that this will always be the case? And forget going against the government, what happens if something goes down that reduces the ability of the government to give aid or control its territory? Do you want to face that with a 6 shot locked revolver and a mandated limit of 50 rounds?