This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.
This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary.
You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.
I did not, do not, and will not assert that there is any reason to believe we must organize against the current administration. I additionally did not state and do not believe that civil war is either desirable or neccesary.
Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(
Sorry, I was writing my crazy before you submitted.
Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners.
The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse.
If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor.
To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic.
This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.
The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution.
Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.