In that case would you support letting people have infinately destructive weapons to fight a war? Why stop at an assult rifle in that case? Why not let people keep Napalm, Nuclear arms and grenade launchers in case of war?

The government have nuclear arms, surely public of the USA must also have access to their own nuclear weapons to overthrow the government.

I always hear about this notion that owning weapons in the USA is for "overthrowing the government" if needed. I find it hilarious.

Does anyone really think the population could overthrow the government without support of the military? Imagine a bunch of guys carrying assault rifles and marching towards the white house... without the support of the military they would get immediately flattened by artillery or a plane bomber or something.

If, on the other hand you have the support of the military, you don't need the assault rifles to overthrow the government.

In either case, I don't really see how assault rifles help you overthrow the government.

@Rath

The gentlemen in question is at war with the duly elected government. His public display of his own fire power is nothing less then an act of intimidation. Really it is an unspoken threat against the President of the United States. He should be quite thankful as others have pointed out it wasn't Bush or Cheney he was threatening. Thanks to this wonderful thing called the Patriot Act. Once he is called a terrorist he is no longer in possession of most of his rights.

He could be arrested and thrown into a cell. He could even be tortured by agents of the government. Then promptly executed, and I know someone said how can they do that. Well the answer is simple anti terrorism legislation basically tosses a person into a legal void. They are no longer a person, and who is to petition the court for you if your denied council. Who is to report that you have gone missing.

This guy is taking advantage of the fact that liberals are too mindful of the law. Were this a mere few years ago he wouldn't have had the balls to do this. Well at least be left to walk freely in the day light.

Modern warfare has taught us that a handful of poorly trained individuals take an amazing amount of resources to suppress; and if just 1% of the population of the United States (roughly 300,000 people) decided to resist government action through force, the US military is not powerful enough to suppress them. A conflict like this would become a war of attrition, and the side which had the most support from the citizens would eventually win.

Now, the reason for bringing a weapon like this to a rally is to make a statement and to get noticed ... The man was able to get interviewed by CNN (and other media sources), and was able to make a statement without screaming over top of someone else.

While I agree it seems odd to let people walk around with assault weapons, the only reason I can see that it's legal, is one of the groups people you have a right, actually, and obligation, to kill in extreme circumstances, are the ones who would be telling you that you can't have them with you.

But, I would not be apposed to a law that says you can own then, but they have to be kept at home unless you plan on using it.

If you want to overthrow a government then logically the best method is to begin a grass roots political movement based on non-violence and democratic means. If people support you then you will eventually gain enough power to make a change.

To start a war with weapons against the government should be a last resort at best.

If Liberals are so against laws like the Patriot Act why didn't they punish Barack Obama for choosing Joe Biden as his running mate? Joe Biden has one of the worst track records for personal freedoms, and was involved in authoring several bills throughout the 90s that were remarkably similar to the Patriot Act.

Of course this only works if you live in a democratic country where you maintain your rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and what not ...

That's true if those individuals are fighting a passive war of hiding and terrorizing, not the kind of action which would be needed to take over the government.

In reality... let's imagine that 3 million Americans start marching towards the white house to overthrow the government with or without weapons... would the military really dare going against them, and killing millions of their countrymen?

If you feel that's all one should need to overthrow the government, they start a movement to change the constitution. 

Until you do that however, that's how it is.