Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkingturtle
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The argument that we need an armed populace to dissuade our government from becoming corrupt is pretty ridiculous to anyone over the age of twelve. It held water 250 years ago when everybody had muskets and cannons, but today the government has drones and bombs and shit. You can't compete with them if they decide they want to do whatever bad things you fantasize about them doing to you. We don't need the second amendment any more...
|
If you were referring to my comment about a corrupt government, I said the right exists to overthrow a corrupt government; not to dissuade one from forming. If you're saying we couldn't compete with the military, I disagree. There are over 300,000,000 U.S. citizens. If actions such as this were being contemplated, I believe it
would be a dissuading factor though.
Quote:
According to the US Department of Defense Website (as on October 6, 2007) . . .
". . . over 1.3 million men and women on active duty, and 669,281 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. About 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits."
|
With that being said, if the U.S. government were to attack its own citizens by military means (which I don't think they would), the National Guard and Reserve should not be ignored. With the combined forces of national protectors, civilians, and everyone in the active military who would disobey orders to kill fellow Americans, I think we have a great chance of not being overtaken.
If no one in the United States could legally own a firearm, I wouldn't be as confident. This is discounting weapons of mass destruction, of course. Nuking anything is usually gg.