the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

[Mr Khan]

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

-CraZed- said:

This story perfectly highlights how and why the right to bear arms is necessary to a free society. Most often those who oppose gun ownership or support extreme limitations on gun ownership often scoff at the notion that we need to be armed to protect ourselves from our own government and yet here you have our own governement with its armed bureaucracies (even bringing in Army Rangers!) harassing a citizen and his family, confiscating their livelihood and supressing and attempting to reduce the areas in which citizens could protest their actions peacefully.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or firing for sport or even so much about self preservation during the perpetration of a violent crime but to ensure that the people could outright and swiftly defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

Kudos to this rancher and all those who showed up to support him.

A tyrannical government who could blow them the fuck away, swiftly and with extreme prejudice if they so chose.

You do realize this hurts and not helps your general arguement right?  The founding fathers would totally want the US Army to basically not exist, and have average people rolling around with tanks in their backyards.

That's the big key: i don't think the founding fathers foresaw the industrialization and professionalization of warfare which really didn't come full-swing until the 20th century. For the longest time (and this still applies in weak states), it was possible for an armed citizenry, if united in its cause, to easily overthrow the government through force of numbers: sure a standing army is better trained, but when the basics of what a standing army is capable of and what a peasant militia is capable of are about the same, the peasant militia can outweigh the standing army, sure. But in modern warfare, the ability to make substantive gains against such a professional military is nigh-impossible unless you yourself are a professional military.

The only reason rebel movements really survive are because of political protections surrounding them: a lack of will to eradicate them, or a lack of will to cause the civilian collateral damage necessary for eradication (for instance, why the US and its allies didn't just firebomb Baghdad out of existence. That would have gotten rid of any bad guys, for sure). But when push really comes to shove, the government will WIN, and quite handily (see Chechnya, where you did see a modern state gain the will to really crush a determined, entrenched insurgency. It was horriffic, but a demonstration for my purpose).