(11-11-2020, 08:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(11-11-2020, 08:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: Wrong.
The second amendment is copied and pasted out of the 13 original state constitutions but without its full context.
Read them yourself.  The phrase a few of them use is "for defense of self and of the State."
There weren't regular police.  Raids from natives, slave revolts, European pirates or European navies were all likely back then. Any raid like that could eliminate State authority, at least for a little while. 
Of course we no longer need guns to help the State maintain its authority. But we still need them for self defense.  
So I don't want to take any guns from you.
But I do hope you harbor no illusions about how effective they would be against a determined federal government.
The Bundy ranch standoff was over a herd of cattle. If it was over an armory or a refinery or a seaport or an airport, those hobbyists with AR-15s would get cleared out with a single sweep from an A-10.  Believe it.  I don't want you or anyone else who listens to that specious line of reasoning to be on the losing end of something like that.

I was always taught never to start a fight, but if someone bigger than you started one, you never back down. You may lose, but you make them know they've been in a fight.

That has the color and texture of some heroic attitude, but in this context, it's poop to the core.  Applying that attitude against your duly elected government puts you in the company of David Koresh and Tim McVeigh.

Besides, the government here usually uses peaceful means first.  The Bundy's got years of written warning that they were liable to have their cattle seized.

---