Not my full personal opinions, but short answers to why/etc which it could be argued.
Pretty high, look at all the anti-terror legalisation you guys have, including secretly moving citizens to places lime Guantamo Bay to avoid a fair trial.
Also, with this, you don't have to spend so much on funding an army as they come already equipped, or if the Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.
The population outnumber the marines. Also the fact, Marines will join the population. If America was going to do it, they would use a foreign armed force, which wouldn't be persuaded to join the opposition.Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.
They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?
How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.
Bookmarks