07-02-2018, 02:28 AM
stanc Wrote:No, that's not why.
When the country was founded, there was a small standing army. Both private citizens and government forces had the exact same types of guns: Muzzleloading muskets, rifles, and pistols.
Today there is a very large standing army. Private citizens (with few exceptions) are still limited to having rifles and pistols, while government forces have rifles, pistols, machine guns, self-propelled artillery, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, etc, etc.
In the 18th Century, an armed citizenry posed a credible counterbalance to an equally armed government.
In the 21st Century, the disparity in force is so great that, IMO, the original concept is no longer adequate in and of itself to be an effective counter to a government becoming tyrannical.
As all can see from the above, your post that I originally quoted, you were trying to make the point that a modern army cannot be resisted ( provide a credible counterbalance) by an armed populace. I disagree, and provided modern day examples of lightly armed insurgents doing just that. Your argument was invalid.
I don't expect you to admit it, but that doesn't change the fact that our right to have firearms provides a final, and pretty effective, measure for us to protect ourselves from our government.