[actsasbuffoon]

What kind of firepower do you think would be necessary to win a fight the US government? I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.

Me with an AR-15 versus the Marines is not going to end well for me.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.

Note that the other side of the popular militia resting in the states protected by the 2nd Amendment is that that was supposed to be the foundation of national defense as well, not a large standing army. (Some standing army as a cadre and rapid reaction force was viewed as necessary, and the absence of one a failing of the pre-Constitutional system.)

[AnimalMuppet]

I said what the intent was. I was replying to your post that said

> I can’t imagine any legal use for a high capacity semiautomatic weapon with armor piercing bullets. A weapon like that is comically impractical for hunting or self defense.

I was pointing out that the point wasn't hunting, or even self defense. It was to form an effective fighting force, and semiautomatic (and even fully automatic) weapons and armor piercing bullets are very useful for that.

You replied, questioning whether such things could be effective today. That's a different question. It's a valid question, but it's a different question from the intent of the Second Amendment (and of what should therefore be legal).

And by the way, the militias, by themselves, were not enough to win the Revolutionary War...