[Publius]

The 2nd Amendment enshrines the Right of Revolution, that is, the right of the people to alter or abolish a government that oversteps its boundaries. In Federalist #46, James Madison created a test case for that. However, that does not give a standing military the right to remove a government with which it disagrees.

Also note that the Constitution forbids the existence of a standing military for more than two years. That ended in 1953 when Ike decided we needed a standing military because of the Cold War. The Cold War ended, but the standing military remains, authorized for a two-year period with every budgetary cycle.

The people, that is, the "militia," no matter how well armed and trained, wouldn't have a chance in a confrontation with a standing military. As Biden pointed out, the standing military has fighter planes and nuclear weapons, both of which would be used against a recalcitrant population.

[AFB-XYZ]

What he actually said was that the people would need F-15s and nukes if they hoped to go up against FedGov. Here is a link that has the actual comment:

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/the-truth-about-bidens-nukes-and-f-15s-comment/

Doesn’t change the fact that he’s less than worthless, though.

[Melian]

[Farcesensitive]

The standing army has been reauthorized every two years since the Founders’ time and it is sworn to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, there has never been a time when military action was so desperately needed to do that protecting from both at once.

[Axenolith]

“The people, that is, the “militia,” no matter how well armed and trained, wouldn’t have a chance in a confrontation with a standing military.”

Individual confrontations don’t define internal conflicts outcomes. Resolve defines their outcome. if you thought the Afghans were good at winning internal conflicts with the government (often the side supported externally) How do you think that will resolve in the US with a majority of the military hailing from the Constructionist side and that side being the majority of the producers/providers of agriculture, mining, transportation, etc...?

[rolling_stone]

The people, that is, the “militia,” no matter how well armed and trained, wouldn’t have a chance in a confrontation with a standing military. As Biden pointed out, the standing military has fighter planes and nuclear weapons, both of which would be used against a recalcitrant population

thats why winning revolutions are not against standing military...swamp fox type methods and individuals not armies
read the book its long but great read think outside the box, ..feed em to the hogs

https://fee.org/articles/unintended-consequences-by-john-ross/