[Pharaoh2]

If that is so, then we have already lost. No firearm held by the citizens can compete with the firepower of the military of today.

The spirit of the amendment may have been in the right place and surely worked when the constitution was written but we live in a very different world now and if you still think the an armed citizenry will avoid tyranny, you need to go to youtube and see what the military can now do.

[woah]

Are you sure about that? Look at Iraq. Also, while soldiers in the military might be fine oppressing a compliant populace, how many will jump ship if they are forced to wage actual war on their countrypersons?

[rail2rail]

All fine and well until the drone army comes online.

Only half kidding.

[threatofrain]

I believe the right to bear arms has been interpreted not only to mean the individual right to own and operate firearms, but also the right to form militias, or paramilitary organizations.

It is unlikely for a paramilitary organization to compete with the armed forces, but in a state where the country is stressed and divided, I don't think the armed forces would stand as a fully united organization. However, while I do concede that my argument is weak, I also assert that it is not nil.

[chrischen]

If you really wanted to oppose the government you'd encrypt your communications. Clearly that's s greater threat since government so vehemently wants to deny that (it's in their self interest to increase their power).

[jemfinch]

What citizens lack in firepower they make up in numbers. Just the 12.5 million registered hunters in the United States exceed the number of active duty military by an order of magnitude.

There is no possible way that the military of today, with all its tanks and bombs and drones and planes, could even attempt to hold any large portion of America under martial law.