| Dodece said:The reality is that the government could become tyrannical, and the right to bare arms would not provide sufficient resistance. The reality is that the government of the United States has too many tools at its disposal. Part of the right to bare arms was the premise that the nation would never have a large standing army. In fact it is antithetical to the reasons and nature of the revolution. |
Yes, the right to bare arms would be insufficient. Even if you had arms like Hulk Hogan, Sergio Oliva, or Mariusz Pudzianowski, baring your arms would be woefully inadequate. Even though I enjoy my right to bare arms, I am not so deluded that I think it would provide sufficient resistance.
On a more serious note, even though it seems laughable in the present that a right to bear arms would act as a deterrent against tyranny, it was seen as such by the Founders. As I previously noted, this belief was propagated most fervently by the Anti-Federalists of both the Constitutional-Convention and Federalist eras. Yes, as I also previously noted, the primary reason was national security; this was especially true for the Federalists. Nevertheless, a secondary reason was a deterrence against tyranny.
