Gee after you tell me I am wrong I guess I will just give up. After all who could resist such persuasion?
In Hamilton's day the difference in weaponry available to private individuals and the military was miniscule compared to that of today. Now the military has aircraft carriers and submarines with gigantic firepower, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons. Individuals will NEVER be allowed to own these. His argument has been invalidated by technological advances. The only way the US military could be resisted by the citizens would be if it refused to fight them.
Nostalgia is ok in its place but has no bearing when considering policy.
You are wrong here, good sir. Here is a passage from author John Ross (emphasis mine):
"the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."
You are correct about the incredible level of industrialized slaughter that a modern military such as our own possesses. From my own stint as a USN Medical Corpsman with the Marines, it is safe to say that any unit given orders to attack American citizens would instantly lose unit cohesion. They wouldn't "not fight", they'd tear each other apart. Something the brass knows full well, rest assured. Free societies are troublesome that way.
All of these examples are artillary, not arms.