I see the problems in a traditional way which is perhaps much more near to the way how your founding fathers saw all this problems. A traditional free city with free citizens in the middle ages had a weapon chamber and everyone in the city had a military training. So in case someone attacked the city all people were called to the weapons (= "Alarm" (all arms)) and everyone knew the own position and what to do with what kind of weapon. This system had been very good - specially also because normally never the citizens had their own weapons - but this system is obsolete.
Today we have a system of national states, different unions and live in a time with intercontinental rockets with a power up to 6500 Hiroshima bombs and hyperspeed torpedos which travel on their own about 10,000 km and can cause a tsunami with the energy of 2x6500 Hiroshima bombs which will easily flood a big part of a coast. And it exist such heavy weapons to destroy the whole planet some dozen times. In the firsts day of such a war will die hundreds of millions - perhaps billions - of people and later the living will envy the dead.
And even in case of a conventional attack of a little group of some thousand soldiers: What to do against their combat experiences and modern weapons like satelite communication, night vision and warmth devices, drones and so on ...?
Your pseudo-romanticism - which I call weapon fetishism - is in the most harmless case a touching naivity - an illusion or delusion of security or a drug like nonsense - but in a worst case scenario extremely dangerous for a peaceful living society.
And "yes" - the answer is "yes". Give the monopol and responsibility to use violence with weapons in public to the governments which are under control of the voters.
www.nationalreview.com
