[invalidOrTaken]

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear confirmation. But I don't get the sense that this point is present even implicitly in the gun control debate. If the power to rebel is what's being protected, why limit assault weapons? Is an armed populace seriously supposed to take on the army with handguns?

I worry thatI might be coming across as a sock puppet with an axe to grind, so maybe I should take this question somewhere else. I'd be interested to hear any and all responses though; thank you in advance.

[rdl]

An intent-of-founders-based reading of the 2A would seem to support ownership of military weapons more than handguns or hunting weapons. There are several groups (GOA, vs. NRA) who support this. Yes, I think the "Sovereign Citizen" people on TV tend to be loons, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is necessarily unreasonable.

(Personally, I think our experience in Iraq shows that any real insurgency or attempt to overthrow a government would take the form of "fuck guns, bring IEDs". Most of the time, an insurgent would actually want to be unarmed entirely so as to blend in with the population. It might sometimes be worth having offensive weapons for specific tasks, but generally unless it was truly open warfare on every citizen, you would want to blend in. Small arms, especially personal weapons vs. crew-served, are basically defensive weapons, or are used to fix the enemy in place for larger weapons to destroy.)

[invalidOrTaken]

Thanks for taking the time.