Originally Posted by A.Nonymous
Just to play Devil's advocate for a minute, you could argue the need for an armed populace has passed. The US is at peace with Canada and Mexico. There's no risk for invasion by either of them in the near future. Our main enemies at the moment are countries like China, North Korea or Iran. They're halfway around the world and if any of them succeeded in landing a single soldier on US soil, you can be sure the war would be long over by that time and we would've lost. So the argument that an armed populace is needed in order to supplement a well-armed national army is not relevant today. At least not in the US.
I don't quite buy that but can see where the logic comes from. I also don't believe "we would've lost", we are still the dominant military power. If it is over that quickly everybody
will have lost, not just us.
Canada was never an issue, Mexico on the other hand is. Not so much the military but the Cartels who are better armed than many small nations. They have already made small incursions inside the U.S., what happens if they decide to try and extend their reach to major U.S. cities, would you want to be unarmed. They already have the people here, it would not have to be an invasion scenario, just a word to start.
The real issue remains protection from our own government, the right to bear arms was intended to keep the government from doing exactly the things they are trying to do now. If they can remove that obstacle we are screwed. The only people with guns will be the government, the corporations and the criminals (often the same individuals, or at least highly interchangeable
Some may be scratching their heads on the corporations comment so I will explain. An individual can purchase a class III weapon only with the signature of the head of local law enforcement, i.e. the Chief of Police, Sheriff or D.A. (I believe, may be wrong on the D.A.). Option two is to set up a trust which removes the signature requirement but is currently under review and may be eliminated soon. Option three, use a corporation which also removes the signature requirement, less of a background check and no limit as to what or how many you can own. This is how companies like Blackwood became able to have security personnel armed with fully automatic weapons. This ability would not be removed, just civilian ownership of class III and whatever other arms they decide to take away (there is much debate on shotguns and single shot rifles inclusion in the ban), corporations would still be able to purchase whatever they want.