Your first reply to this thread was
"Now Wait a minute..."Them" includes oath-breaking agents of the IRS, DEA, HHS, Marshalls service, Secret Service, State Police, local police, county sheriffs, and others ... including National Guard and regular Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Some will disobey orders ...but not all"
In spite of the fact that I address rationally these exact topics in my well researched article. Disagree about the numbers ? Sources not the best ? Let's discuss it, but you hit first with a "This dumb grunt missed these important points" - type post. Like I said, you're obviously well educated which leaves only your motives with dishonest demoralization of that type.
My argument is clear and concise. I allow and mention it in the article that there is plenty of wiggle room for numbers. I mention the split in the military during CWI and during FDR and you claim I'm basing it on feelings ?
In the end, we are armed. We are free, and we are strong enough to stay that way.
While we're on the topic of allies and alienation, coming to a FR gun rights thread with Harvard's rule book of logical debate isn't going to win you any followers yourself.
No, you did not rationally address them. You wrote off as nonexistent both the profusion of civilian "law enforcement" entities and the entire US military. You did so with no factual support, and used it to present a naively optimistic POV that IMO is dangerous. It certainly has been very dangerous to folks in the past.
Then, you responded to comment and criticism in a very brittle and personally offensive manner, which speaks ill both of you and of the position you're trying to hold.
The worst part of this is that in the main, I agree with you ... yet all you have accomplished in direct conversation is to convince me that you're a person to be avoided and not to be trusted.
Check your attitude ... it's not doing you any good.