If you had carefully read the posts on this subject you would have seen that much of what you had been interpreting as anti-police rhetoric aimed at our current situation was merely a recognition that there is nothing unique about the German people's susceptibility to a charismatic tyrant and that the Second Ammendment could provide a mechanism to short circuit that rise to power.
Now I am glad you and Kevin Curry are so sure about who and what will be on the scene in the future. Could one of you please tell me the winning six numbers for the next lotto drawing in private by e-mail since you have such good quality crystal balls.
Now in point of fact there were some in the 1930's who though FDR was a tyrant and there were even some who tried to get a military coup d'etat organized using the Marine General as the supposed public figurehead. That is historical fact. Had the general in question not been true to his oath then we would have possibly seen tyranny in the USA.
I hereby suggest you learn the difference between order and law and order. I further suggest you re-read the Constitution and the posts on this page.
A discussion of hypotheticals and history and the underlying meaning of the Second Ammendment extrapolated to the 21'st century and possible future threats to our Constitutional form of government is a fair subject for discussion with some idiot flaming away because tehy do not understand what is being said.
How about this load of crap?:
"We are not talking about gforeign troops in the USA we are talking about American troops having to use force on other Americans the Soviet experience is not relevant because the Soviet troops' families were not living in the nation they were ravaging. Body armor and other weapons can be obtained. We are talking first about taking on the police type units which if loyal to the tyranny will not have the support of the full army."