Henry Vilas wrote:BSH, have you served in the U.S. military? I have (four years during wartime). There is no way the armament possessed by the U.S. citizenry can successfully take on the might of our government's Armed Forces.
I think you have watched Red Dawn way too many times.
See, that's where you go wrong if you interpret the primary purpose as being "to take on the US military" or to overthrow the US government. I believe the primary purpose is to act as a prophylactic-- to prevent the rise of conditions where the people would be at war with the government. It is like barbed wire atop a surrounding wall: When it does it's job of deterrence you won't have to go in a toe-to-toe fight, and you're unaware of how many battles have been avoided due to it's presence.
But even in your fantasized scenario:
Your assumption that the entire Armed Forces would somehow be loyal to a tyrannical US government is a huge, and I would say, doubtful assumption. You may be enlightened if you spent some time on gun rights forums and see how many veterans and active duty are there.
And, if you think technological superiority guarantees a military victory, you have a very simplistic and erroneous idea of the nature of warfare.
Last, you also need to consider that the number of military personnel actually engaged in combat is small compared to the number of non-combat support personnel. And that there are at least around ten or more civilian gun owners for every soldier, marine, airman or sailor, including the reserves: be they infantrymen, cooks, mechanic, clerks, truck drivers. Throwing every sworn federal and local law enforcement officer (whose support of a tyrannical government would also be doubtful) into the mix would barely change things. If you haven't noticed, over 300 sheriffs across the country have already said publically that they wouldn't enforce certain potential federal gun control legislation should it be passed. That's not an insignificant number.
Now, if you could somehow reduce that balance of power to the point where the military and police actually held the upper hand in the amount of potential violent power then the conditions for a tyrannical government could arise. If you look at the entire period of time since the establishment of the United States, you'll be hard-pressed to identify many areas in the rest of the world that have not been subjected to a tyrannical government at some point during the past 250 years. Africa? Difficult to name a single country. South America? Forget it! Asia? No way. Europe? Most of it was under the control of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or the Soviet Union at one time, if not their locally grown dictators.
I'd say the 2nd Amendment has done it's job fairly well, and continues to do so.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao