mornelithe said:
See, this is where the argument falls apart. I can see the argument from self-defense from criminal aspects, and I most certainly agree that targeting a weapon (assault rifles) that aren't the main culprit (hand guns) makes zero sense to me. But, a tyrranical Government? Really? That's your fallback? In what world do you live in where a supposed 'tyrranical US Government' intent on killing you, would be stopped by armor piercing bullets fired from a gun of that caliber and range? Nevermind helicopters, nevermind jets, nevermind a 50 caliber that could punch a hole through your house and still tear you to pieces, a single drone, or hell if they're 'tyrranical' a cruise missile taking out your entire block is a mere pittance to them. Hell, they could just send in a few of the SWORD prototypes in, and lay waste. Why would they care? They're tyrranical. Again, I do like guns...but that whole self defense thing against the Government mattered when black powder was cutting edge tech. A group of citizens stands no chance against a US Gov't willing to forgo rules of engagement and constitutional law (no armed forces in US cities). That's just how it is, unless we relax things even further and allow private citizens to purchase heavy weaponry en-masse. |
Well the military and all of it's high tech weapons couldn't stop terrorists in Afghanistan, so I don't see a scenario where our beloved military could take on Americans.
@ bolded, well they may be tyrannical, I don't think their goal would be to destroy the country.