My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.--Mia T
... You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat
The point of my original argument is that 'regulation' is not necessarily the enemy of the 2nd amendment, that 'regulation' can in fact save the 2nd amendment as well as kill it.
I formulated the Founders'-underlying-intent premise originally as a hypothetical. That said, I believe the premise is, in fact, true. Show me why it is not.
P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid').
Numbers, morale, the moral high ground, guerilla tactics, never massing troops, anonymity, etc... all of those things are helping the terrorists in Iraq now ("the moral high ground" being in THEIR eyes, of course), and they'd be our strengths in any kind of insurrection here.
The Japanese were terrified of the idea of invading America with troops, since there would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". Our military is incredibly powerful... but in the end, you need motivated boots on the ground to win, and those loyal to an American tyrant simply would not possess sufficient numbers if every American hunter became a rebellious sniper overnight.