The weapons systems being discussed in the article are not guns, but things like armored vehicles, drones, crowd management devices, etc that act as substantial for e multipliers.

But America has banned nearly almost weapon that America itself has/does/will arm militias with around the world. Things like machine guns, grenades, mortars, light rocket launchers, recoilless rifles, anti-tank guided missiles, and occasionally shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles are all common weapons the U.S. government supplies to militias that fight against our enemies (even if the militia itself is not our friend). Those things are all strictly controlled in the U.S. If the average American citizen goes down to the nearest federal courthouse and asks the government to not just allow you to purchase a couple dozen stinger and Javelin missiles, but asks them for the form where U.S. government provides them to you and your local militia for free, they will either be arrested or laughed out of the building.

It's funny because in the Constitution and in the Federalist papers the framers thought it would be some extremely consequential and soul searching debates and votes about to authorized armies for more than two years at a time. Along with the local militia being about as capable as the standing Army, and in most cases they would do all the defending the country needed without even needing to raise a standing army.

Hamilton in Federalist in Federalist 26 makes two interesting points, basically that if Congress and the president conspire together for years to build a security apparatus capable of defeating liberty, then representative democracy should be replaced by getting as close to direct democracy with no delegation to representatives.

>An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

Also, he basically says that if a situation is so dangerous in the world that it requires the creation of a military capable of being a hazard to its liberty then you're screwed.

>Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamities for which there is neither preventative nor cure.

Yea, your little gun is no match for the United States military and their dones.

The thing that has saved the United States is that the military cannot be used on American soil against American citizens. The military takes that very seriously and that's why they rejected Trump on multiple occasions when he told them to attack Americans.

Neither side will help you the system is rigged for the rich, left and right is used as distraction.

Though it makes an interesting point to consider regarding 2A. The more sophisticated weapons in the hands of the people, the less control the authoritarians would have from a relative standpoint at the expense of a more dangerous populace.

[removed]

[removed]