That's the point. It's not an out-there idea.
The Constitution was written by people who had taken arms against a government. It's reasonable to infer that they thought doing so was important and might be necessary in the future.
The Constitution was written by people who had taken arms against a government. It's reasonable to infer that they thought doing so was important and might be necessary in the future.
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.
(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.)