What Are You Going To Do With Your "Assault Rifles" When The Government Has Nuclear Weapons?Submitted by Delysid on Sat, 01/05/2013 - 15:20
There is much controversy regarding the possible prohibition of the misnomer "assault" weapons by the Federal government, but it is little more than a waste of time, as the 2nd amendment was long ago corrupted and nullified.
If there was a true, violent revolution against the Federal Government of the United States, which is equipped with state of the art military technology, the revolutionaries would be immeasurably outgunned due to longstanding prohibitions of weapons. Civilians are prohibited from having the same nuclear weapons as the government, or the weapons technology used on an Apache helicopter, or whatever else state of the art technology the government is using. Hell, you can't even buy enough fertilizer to make a powerful clandestine bomb. It is illegal for you and legal for the government.
Here is a thought scenario to ponder...
Say there is a true revolution against the government, and the revolutionaries seize a small city, let's say my hometown of Akron, OH. The revolutionaries are equipped with assault rifles and handguns and the other weapons you can legally purchase at a gun show. What would the Federal government have to do to squash the rebellion?
All they would do is announce to the rebels controlling Akron that a neutrino bomb would be dropped at a given time, and anyone who doesn't surrender and leave the city will be nuked. What good would those assault weapons be?
I think people are missing the big picture on the entire gun debate. It should be about civilians having access to the same weapons as the government. Forget this talk about "assault rifles," I think nuclear weapons (and any other weapon the government has access to) should be legal for civilian possession (as long as they don't use it other than for self-defense).