[Taltarzac725]

Nicely put about the 2nd Amendment. And I believe that in that period in US History they meant a well-regulated militia's Right to Bear Arms and not so much individual settlers and towns people. They were afraid that people still loyal to England might take up arms again or some despot might take over the government which had happened often in Roman history which many learned men read.

Originally Posted by MartinSE

And at the time it was argued it was possible for a militia to use muzzle loaders to take back a rogue government.

I expect AR15's against the new XM5 will be found lacking. I expect 9MM against a M1 Abrams will be found lacking. On and On.

Are you suggesting citizens should have Cruise missiles? Why not automatic weapons? Why not F35's? After all, if the constitution - specifically the 2nd amendment - wants to be sure the populous can take back a rogue government , then it would seem to follow the citizens should be allowed to be equally armed.

Let's look at Ukraine - are we sending them civilian weapons? No, we are depleting our military arsenal because they do not have enough weapons locally capable of defending against a modern military.

So, unless you want access to Cruise, M1 Abrams, F35's and more, your argument is some what lacking.

I will completely agree there are many places in the US where a person may need a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have NO problem with that, or them. I question the need of a citizen to have 1,000 to 5,000 weapons stashed in the survival bunker. I question the need for a private citizen to own and M1 Abrams.

Do you?