What is it about my question regarding the right of Syrian people to have tanks and other weapons that has you and Henry too afraid to tackle?
Nobody's answering this one because it's got nothing to do with the second amendment to the US constitution, why we have it, what purpose it serves today, or what its limitations are or ought to be.
The Syrian people seem to be having a revolution. In times of revolution, the first rule is no rules. Under those conditions, "rights" fall by the wayside.
We are not having a revolution here at this time, I hope. For that reason, I think having a few rules is appropriate for public safety and other purposes.
When things totally fall apart and those rules cannot be enforced, then you're sliding toward civic breakdown which is a condition for a revolution of some kind. I am defining revolution as the breakdown of established order and its replacement by some other order (or apparent lack of order) same as it was defined at the time of the drafting of our country's founding documents.
A coup counts as revolution for the purposes of this discussion, I think.
If you are saying we need to get armed up to defend against some kind of coup in the US, I'm questioning whether any probable kind of coup can be repulsed by an unorganized militia. That's what it seems like you are advocating, though I'm having trouble following exactly what you're advocating at various points in this discussion.
I have no stake in misrepresenting your views (what would be the point of arguing against a misrepresentation?) so maybe you need to clarify them first.
I think if this country's functioning democracy is overcome by some external or internal force, the following are more likely than armed invasion: electronic intrusion and destruction of our electronic infrastructure which would render much of our power grid inoperable; or cooptation of the governmental structure by a small group of powerful people who want to be limited by no laws at all -- that is, the government becomes an ineffectual shell while the powers do as they please and answer to no one. (That one's possibly in progress.)
I don't see guns as having much of a role in either case, unless when everything falls apart people start preying on one another. That's not anything you described upthread, though it's a popular topic of movies, literature and other fantasy, and fringe organizations.
Armed invasion is just plain too cumbersome, requires too much personnel, costs a whole lot, and has to be continually reinforced. There seem to be better ways to take over a developed country these days. The sneaky ones are optimal and can't be defended against by conventional means at all. A developed country has vulnerabilities we have not yet begun to catalog.