You Have the Right to Bear Arms You Also Have a Need to Bear Arms

That USA has both the highest firearm ownership per capita and the most freedoms is not a coincidence.

Per capita (the only relevant statistic) USA not even in top ten.

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019

El Salvador (36.78)
Venezuela (33.27)
Guatemala (29.06)
Colombia (26.36)
Brazil (21.93)
Bahamas (21.52)
Honduras (20.15)
U.S. Virgin Islands (19.40)
Puerto Rico (18.14)
Mexico (16.41)

Subtract suicides and cities/states with failed restrictive firearms laws ( Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, St Louis, Baltimore) and the numbers are considerably less.

Might as well print this whole article than summarize parts, sans graphs since that's not doable (first chart posted in this section):

https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

⬛ On gun violence, the United States is an outlier

Publication date:
March 25, 2021

Among 64 high-income countries and territories, the United States stands out for its high levels of gun violence. The US ranks eighth out of 64 for homicides by firearm (age-adjusted). ​Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, two US territories, rank first and third on that list. Firearm injuries tend to be more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms, according to findings from the 2018 Global Burden of Disease study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

🔲 (Graph Source: GBD Compare (ihmeuw.org/5f6r)

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first.

🔲 (Graph Source: IHME/Scott Glenn)

Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 13 times greater than they are in France, and 22 times greater than in the European Union as a whole. The US has 23 times the rate of firearm homicide seen in Australia.

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 17 per 100,000 in Washington, D.C. to a low of 0.91 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, D.C.’s rate is similar to those of the Bahamas and Mexico, which rank eighth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Pakistan. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is nearly five times greater than that of the European Union as a whole.

🔲 (Graph Source: IHME/Scott Glenn)

Taking a global view, the six countries with the highest age-adjusted rates of firearm homicides are:

1. El Salvador
2. Venezuela
3. Guatemala
4. Colombia
5. Honduras
6. Brazil

Research has found high levels of homicides in these countries are associated with drug cartels, the illegal trade in firearms from the US, and firearms flowing to civilians after conflicts end, as summarized in the Global Burden of Disease study.

Numerous studies have highlighted promising policies to reduce gun violence. In the US, research published in JAMA found an association between laws strengthening backgrounds....

pt.1

2nd graph, "When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first."

https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

pt.2 copypaste

.....

Numerous studies have highlighted promising policies to reduce gun violence. In the US, research published in JAMA found an association between laws strengthening background checks or requiring permits to purchase firearms with reductions in rates of firearm homicides.

Following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 in Australia, the Australian National Firearms Agreement restricted the use of firearms by civilians. This legislation has been credited with ending mass shootings and reducing firearm suicides in Australia according to a study published in JAMA.

In South Africa, rates of violent deaths dropped after the passage of the Firearms Control Act of 2000, according to research published in The South African Medical Journal.

In Brazil, São Paulo reduced firearm homicides through firearm buy-back programs, enforcement of firearm control legislation passed in 2003, and improvements in policing, as made evident in research published in SciElo.

3rd chart.

Actually your chart ranks the USA at 10th, and like the homicide ranking which is lower, the competition was with poor 3rd World countries experiencing civil wars, civil strife, and drug gang violence (most of those thanks to us).
When compared to developed, richer countries, the USA quite literally and yes, pun intended, blows the competition away.

Note that some of the top contenders had been flattened by Hurricane Maria when these figures were compiled, ratcheting up chaos to the max, particulary the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, which if kept with the USA in stats, basically would make the rest of the planet look like a massive Kumbaya hugfest with death by gun a mere statistical blip.

"RunawayTrain
....
Subtract suicides and cities/states with failed restrictive firearms laws ( Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, St Louis, Baltimore) and the numbers are considerably less."

As can be seen in the graph, this is totally false, even now after the pandemic witnessed hordes of criminals released from prison and that with the rest causing crime across the board in all states to skyrocket. Prior to 2020, for example, NYC was the safest big city in America and as seen in this meme, waaaaaaaaaaaay safer than even small towns whose inhabitants believe to be safe but are anything but.
Bear in mind, math and stats ain't my forte (dang thing took the longest to figure), so if I'm off a digit anywhere, forgive me. So far no one has found any errors on my part:

imgflip.com/i/2ekh9v?nerp=1532884549#com2466646

9 unsolicited responses is bordering on harassment, SosoDEFF. Tread lightly. This is not PoliticsToo.

You liberals do not scare me, but I do take your attachment to evil seriously.

As for protecting myself from "nothing", you live in utter ignorance, defined by the MSM. The estimate of there being 3,000,000 defensive uses of a firearm is, of course, meaningless to you. Most uses never make the news, because simply producing a means of self-defense thwarts most criminals.

Criminals, aka liberals, are cowards, which is why they prey on the innocent and the defenseless, so showing yourself able to defend yourself? That ends many encounters.

But, here again, we see you unable to fathom the obvious. The 2nd Amendment is not primarily about incidental self-defense, though that is certainly intrinsic. Its primary thrust is to allow the owners of the Government, the Citizens, to deal with a government that has gone tyrannical. This literally nullifies every argument made supporting gun laws- there is no mag capacity too large, no caliber too large, no barrel length too short, etc.

Admittedly, if the people of the 1700s could see us now, they would say we long passed allowing our government to turn tyrannical, which goes to prove that the devil, via liberals/progressives/Democrats, is a master at using incrementalism to move evil forward.

All gun laws are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. And if the time comes when I have to join others to save this country, I will be doing so for even you, though liberals hardly deserve to live in a country like this. I hear Canada is the country of choice when things don't go the liberal's way.

"But, here again, we see you unable to fathom the obvious. The 2nd Amendment is not primarily about incidental self-defense, though that is certainly intrinsic. Its primary thrust is to allow the owners of the Government, the Citizens, to deal with a government that has gone tyrannical. This literally nullifies every argument made supporting gun laws- there is no mag capacity too large, no caliber too large, no barrel length too short, etc."

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to get drafted into military service in order to defend the goverment. And not only as a volunteer without pay, the conscript is expected to supply his own working weapon and ammo as well.

The rest of that ambling partisan hack diatribing likewise bear no tether to reality, but I figured the confusion over the 2A could use some clarification. You know, in case you wanted to join the National Guard. Without pay. BYOG.

"The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to get drafted into military service in order to defend the goverment [sic]. And not only as a volunteer without pay, the conscript is expected to supply his own working weapon and ammo as well."

You need to supply a lot more than a picture of the 2nd, with a little ad hominem thrown in for good measure, to convince anyone of your point.

The preponderance of the writings of those behind this Amendment mock your twisted view of the 2nd.

A free state needs to have a well regulated militia, something the founders recognized as essential given the nature of mankind, as well as the fact that they had just repelled an outside force.
Given that a free state requires this, they also recognized, based again on human nature as well as all of recorded history, that a state is run by humans, requiring a check to be in place. Knowing that states often (if not always) turn tyrannical, they intended for the citizens to be armed to deal with this, should that ever become necessary.

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant men (sorry ladies), and they did not accidentally place their commas. Whereas liberals, like yourself, have a transitory morality & situational ethics, and therefore change the meaning of words to suit your needs, they understood that words have a definite meaning.

So let me break this down for you-

Because a free state must have a standing army to deal with hostile foreign nations, this standing army must be armed. Since this same army could be used against its own citizens, the citizens must also be armed.

It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to see why Democrats constantly attack this Amendment, as the people being armed continues to stand in their way of ultimate tyranny.

You can whine about my understanding being wrong, but what does reality teach us?

From the very beginning of all of this, the citizens of this country have been well armed. I am sure you have heard this quote:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
― Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

btw- The "fact checks" that surround this quote are arguments from silence, and their strong assertions are just that, but not proof.

"...the days when this was possible are long gone. the way to do it now is to VOTE!! we only have tyranny when evil men take over and the public lets them. thats why biden won the election with RECORD votes!! trump helped him do that......."

Well, obviously we know we cannot count on you to do anything about a tyrannical govt. It's OK to admit you're scared.

Look around the world, snowflake. Citizens defending their homelands do in fact push back against "superior" forces. This is the story of the Middle East, and we see it happening in Ukraine. Often the evil giant wins, but not always.

Some people would rather defend their country standing on their feet rather than dying as cowards on their knees.

You may want to consider putting your order in asap: https://tinyurl.com/y55ojw5k

That's only true from the standpoint of the government committing violence against the citizens. In a country like the United States, citizens commit lots of violence against each other with guns on a daily basis

"In a country like the United States, citizens commit lots of violence against each other with guns on a daily basis"

Are you really this ignorant? Truly, are you?

Criminals commit lots of violence through many more means that just firearms. More people are murdered through the use of hammers and other blunt objects, including fists and feet, than are murdered by rifles of ALL types combined, not just those scary AR-15 (not assault) rifles. Yet Democrats routinely threaten only the scary "assault" rifles. Only a fool thinks that if we gave up that ground that handguns would not immediately follow.

Are you really comparing the tragic 20-21,000 gun deaths from 2021 with the millions of people killed by their own governments after all guns were taken away? That is, after all, THE point of this meme. It really is painful to see how insipid your need to troll, and be annoying is- the thought that you might be inflicting your mental illness on a child, or children, is saddening. And unlike you, I don't say that to insult you, nor to win the argument, nor as some weird sort of one-upmanship- it is saddening. Certainly, it is a story that is repeated over and over again.

Moreover, are you saying that citizens in other countries don't also commit violence against each other? Your irrational bias is really hanging out on this one.

You say you own a firearm. How many people has your gun run off and killed while you weren't looking? Zero, you say? How is this possible?

"im not the fool."

Ironically, that is something a fool would say.

If you have to say it, it probably isn't so.

You:
"i [sic] suppose YOUR answer is to ARM everyone? i [sic] wonder how u [sic] live with urself [sic] thinking shit like that."

Also you:
"the [sic] thing is, we dont [sic] need an amendment to allow us to bear arms. thats [sic] an unalienable right, just as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are. unalienable [sic] refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away."

"...wow, sounds like we need unarm everyone to fix this problem, huh?"

I wonder how it is that you live with yourself, given that you allegedly do not suffer fools.

This is a game you liberals LUV to play- in the land of make-believe, it is whatever I say it is!

I asked you if you were dropped on your head as a baby . . . and you couldn't think of an original retort?

You win today's imgflip Pee-Wee Herman Award! Congratulations!!!

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/viral-image/no-evidence-hitler-made-statement-about-gun-contro/

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1327/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

How is that an argument from silence? I'm not saying that the lack of evidence proves he didn't say it, but if there's no evidence he did say it we shouldn't assume that he did

You are worried about the wrong things- stop letting the MSM/Democrat Party tell you what to be afraid of.

The Bill of Rights is largely about the limitations placed on the Government, NOT about limitations on the citizens it is intended to protect.

If you can't trust Mr. Rogers, who can you trust?

Many Conservatives did not like GHWBush, nor his son, so you are painting with too broad a brush. But given what we already know about Biden, it would appear that Biden is trying to take the mantle of the most criminal president away from 0bama. I think Hillary should get runner-up even though she was never president, but in her sick twisted mind she believes she was/is.

btw- A vote for ANY Democrat is a vote supporting the murder of unborn children. There is nothing more evil and criminal than this. Hopefully by the time you are old enough to vote, you will have learned the difference.

However, until you evict Donald Trump from your brain (based on your memes), you will never be able to see much of anything with true clarity.

"Before [sic] I thought you were irrational. Now I see just how far gone you are. If you think being liberal is synonymous with being a criminal, then that would mean no conservatives ever commit any crime, right? Is that what you are saying?"

Since the answer to those two questions is "no", this would mean that it is really you that is "far gone". I could have told you this already.

Because you are spiritually, morally, and intellectually blind, you constantly take things far past their logical conclusions. This would explain why an absolute statement like, "God does not exist" is not absolute in your mind.

I admittedly made this meme a long time before you started stalking me, but I feel it applies to you as well. Enjoy!

(And because you do not understand the subtleties of various tools and modes of speech, "small" is not meant to be taken literally, as in physical dimensions.)

"Spiritual is make-believe, so that's not even a thing."

It's make-believe to think that merely declaring a thing makes it so. But this is not unlike your belief that a man saying he is a woman means he is a woman. And you are the (alleged) adult, gun toting, truck driving, family man that likes to play with make-believe horseys- do I have that right? Imaginary, and I believe you told me, "magical", ponies. While this may make you an expert on make-believe, I know already that your take on God and the spiritual is wrong.

I don't think- I know. More's the pity for you- standing outside in the rain with your MLP action figure firmly grasped in your hand, looking in at something you cannot understand.

"Can you prove absolutely, 100%, that I'm "spiritually, morally, and intellectually blind"?"

It seems as though you are presenting the premise that I must prove you to be 100% all of each of those things to be able to 100% prove they are so. I reject that notion- I only need to see examples of each to know that this is the case.

Intellectually, you defend all manner of things that flies in the face of conventional science, including what the definition of a woman is. Moreover, you are an atheist, which is the most untenable form of unbelief.

Spiritually, well, you cannot claim the spiritual is make-believe and be anything but spiritually blind. If the reality of the spiritual does not exist, then conceptually we are all spiritually blind.

Morally, given that you do not believe in an ultimate Lawgiver, you believe that morality is driven my majority fiat, ironically enough enforced by men with guns if the need presents itself. This can only mean that morality will change over time, though in reality, it changes with the mores of the individual based on convenience and opportunity.

You, as usual, presume that I must make this case to YOUR satisfaction. I realize that you have lived on this site for a long, LONG time, so you probably feel like you own the place. Maybe you do- I have long suspected that you stir things up here to keep people engaged. The more time they spend here, the more advertising takes place = more money for someone. I would not be surprised, however, to find out that you do it for free.

Well, not exactly for free. It is obvious that you seek approval and some sort of mental support and satisfaction, almost like what a pacifier is to a baby. No one spends as much time doing what you do without a desperate need.

"You were probably assuming I would disagree with you, but since I support the Second Amendment, I agree with this point"

And you say I'm irrational? Just as a vote for any Democrat is a vote supporting the murder of unborn children, so also a vote for any Democrat is a vote to defrock the 2nd Amendment.

No Party works as tirelessly as the Democrat Party to defraud the law-abiding citizen of his right to bear arms, and it is foolish to not see this.

"Do you believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership in the United States? Do you believe that people convicted of violent crimes and domestic violence should be allowed to own guns? Do you think that freedom without boundaries is a good thing?"

I assume that these are rhetorical questions, coming from you, where you assume the answer before getting it. In general, it has nothing to do with the arguments supporting the 2nd Amendment, as the 2nd was written for law-abiding citizens. And it is Democrats that try to give criminals a much more dangerous weapon than a firearm- giving them the ability to vote again, after proving that they do not deserve such a right.

But then, we all know who the preponderance of criminals will vote for, don't we?

"Saying that a certain group of people doesn't deserve to live in this country is one short step away from saying they should be forced to leave. I despise much of what you stand for, but you have just as much of a right to be here as I do."

Perhaps, if the mind behind this comment were still liberal in orientation, you would be right, but coming from someone who likes to use hyperbole to make a point, not so much.

As for despising much of what I stand for, that is false. You have a warped view of God and the Bible, as seen in your continuous misrepresentation of both, so in truth, you have no idea what I stand for.
***

And He said to them,
“To you has been given the secret of the Kingdom of God,
but for those outside everything is in parables,
so that

“‘They may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”

-Mark 4:11-12

1. You don't know how to read, or reading comprehension is the issue? I have provided enough evidence showing that the authors of the Constitution intended for citizens to own guns. Everything you have said is your personal opinion based on . . .
2. You seem triggered.
3. "the thing is, we dont need an amendment to allow us to bear arms. thats an unalienable right,"
The 2nd does not give us the right to bear arms- it prevents the government from infringing on that right. This is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is- limits on the government.

You seem a little insane . . .

I think I am going to invest in a keyboard company, and one that makes cell phone screens. The way you bang on those keys, virtual of otherwise!

Banging harder and louder and CAPITALIZING words doesn't make your point true- it makes you look desperate, and foolish.

But extra points for using a multisyllabic word like "superfluous"! I am duly impressed that you could squeak that one out, with such a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You heard that Trump wasn't president anymore, right? Your TDS won't let you move on with your life, will it?

There are two groups referenced in the 2nd- the militia, which back then was EVERYONE, and the regular citizen. They recognized that there would be a time when the two were not one and the same, so they set up this amendment to prevent the government from ever restricting our right to bear arms.

The 2nd is primarily in place so that citizens can deal with a government that has turned on them.

All of your babbling (do you write Biden's speeches for him?) is meaningless when compared to the results of how this country understood the 2nd for centuries- we have the greatest per capita private ownership of guns.

btw- the NRA came into existence to give the slave the freedom to possess a gun, in order to defend himself against Democrats, aka slave owners.

"And you say I'm irrational?"

Yes, dtuck. I do

"Just as a vote for any Democrat is a vote supporting the murder of unborn children, so also a vote for any Democrat is a vote to defrock the 2nd Amendment"

Neither of those are true

"I assume that these are rhetorical questions, coming from you, where you assume the answer before getting it"

No, they're actual questions I'm wondering about

I agree that the 2A was written with law-abiding citizens in mind, that some people disagree on whether convicted felon should be able to own guns

"And it is Democrats that try to give criminals a much more dangerous weapon than a firearm- giving them the ability to vote again, after proving that they do not deserve such a right"

Voting is more dangerous than a gun? Interesting logic. So you'd rather give a convicted murder a gun than a ballot.

"Perhaps, if the mind behind this comment were still liberal in orientation, you would be right, but coming from someone who likes to use hyperbole to make a point, not so much"

How so? Are you saying I don't believe that?

"You have a warped view of God and the Bible, as seen in your continuous misrepresentation of both"

You say that but you haven't demonstrated that it's actually true. Just because I point out there are terrible things that the Bible advocates doesn't mean I don't understand it. Also, I wonder if you would agree with a Muslim who said the same thing about Christians interpreting the Quran.

"They may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven."

So god doesn't want everyone to be forgiven?

"Yes, dtuck. I do"

And, like most of what you have to say, simply saying it does not make it so.

"Neither of those are true"

You cannot be serious, given how obvious the Democrats are. In spite of the fact that you claim to have a family, you spend an inordinate amount of time trolling people on this site, and I would be very surprised if this site was the limit of your trolling, despite the fact that you have dedicated a lot of time here, since at least since 2015. 7 years of this nonsense?

"that some people disagree on whether convicted felon should be able to own guns"

Given what you think you know of me, in what universe would you expect to find me wanting convicted felons (aka convicted Democrats) to own guns? But the sad truth remains- they will likely acquire them nonetheless. Criminals have a habit of breaking laws, hence the term, "criminals".

"So god doesn't want everyone to be forgiven?"

I have quoted passages that indicate the exact opposite, but as with the rest of the Bible, there are lessons to be learned. Take pharaoh, who God describes as having a hard heart. After God sent a number of plagues, pharaoh would begin to relent, but then he would harden his heart. Until he finally crossed a line, and then God hardened his heart. Not that pharaoh would have ever done otherwise, but there is a real significance when God steps in like this.

Your feigned ignorance only serves to hide your true ignorance. Or perhaps you simply cannot learn.

p.s. The judgments of lost heathen are meaningless to me. U don't understand my approach because u are blind.

But by the way u are triggered, I would say my approach is having the intended effect.

U couldn't overcome the overwhelming evidence for what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, so u moved on to ad hominem, and I will bet u still hold to ur failed and flawed beliefs about it. Brainwashing and indoctrination is, indeed, very difficult to overcome.

John 3:8
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going;
So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

As for Gandhi, he didn't like our Christ enough to repent of his sins, and believe in Jesus for salvation. This means he is in Hell at the moment, awaiting Final Judgment. You might want to reconsider who you rely on for wisdom . . .

"In spite of the fact that you claim to have a family, you spend an inordinate amount of time...on this site"

Indeed

"and I would be very surprised if this site was the limit of your trolling"

Perhaps

"7 years of this nonsense?"

No. From 2014 when I joined with my first account, until 2016-2017, it was all fun, almost no politics. Then it changed.

"convicted felons (aka convicted Democrats)?"

Is that some sort of "burn"? Because it doesn't make any sense.

"But the sad truth remains- they will likely acquire them nonetheless. Criminals have a habit of breaking laws, hence the term, "criminals"."

And I wasn't talking about them illegally obtaining guns, I was talking about them being allowed to legally own guns

"I have quoted passages that indicate the exact opposite, but as with the rest of the Bible, there are lessons to be learned. Take pharaoh, who God describes as having a hard heart. After God sent a number of plagues, pharaoh would begin to relent, but then he would harden his heart. Until he finally crossed a line, and then God hardened his heart. Not that pharaoh would have ever done otherwise, but there is a real significance when God steps in like this"

That doesn't answer the question. Does god want everyone to be forgiven, or not?

And if he intentionally hardened pharaoh's heart, then he (god) is to blame for that

"That doesn't answer the question. Does god want everyone to be forgiven, or not?"

Asked, and answered, both by inference here, and in previous posts.

"And if he intentionally hardened pharaoh's heart, then he (god) is to blame for that"

You do not get to decide that. God does what He does from His perfection, which He also gets to decide. Your perverse understanding of what that means is just that- perverse.

Pharaoh made his choice, and God "sealed the deal", as it were. What you fail to understand is that, in the context I provided for you, this hardening had NOTHING to do with pharaoh's chance for salvation- only for his decisions on whether or not to let Israel go. It would seem that pharaoh might have relented, but this was closed off to him. And his sin, and that of his court, caused the suffering of his people. Who God spared and who He did not is not revealed to us.

"You do not get to decide that. God does what He does from His perfection, which He also gets to decide"

If god makes it harder for people to do what they're supposed to, then punishes them for not doing what they're supposed to, I can and will criticize him for that

"And his sin, and that of his court, caused the suffering of his people"

No, god caused the suffering by sending the plagues and killing little kids

"...the [sic] whole body of the people are NOT armed and do NOT constitute a force superior to all our branches of military and all their weapons of war. if [sic] u [sic] dont [sic] realize this is true, u [sic] are woefully out of touch with reality and living inna [sic] fantasy world. back [sic] then, we had men and muskets and horses and cannons. thats [sic] about it! its OBVIOUSLY NOT like that NOW!! once [sic] again, ur [sic] argument is invalid."

***

Current total of the 4 branches of military = 1,489,567

Current number of firearms owned in the US = 393,000,000+
Current number of firearms owners = 16,600,000+

16,600,000 - 1,489,567 = 15,110,433

But then I am going to assume that at least a minimum 33% of those with active military status will choose to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and choose to do their duty to protect both it and the citizens of this country. We now have a force superiority of 15,601,990. It is fair to expect even more would choose to not follow unconstitutional orders, which would leave perhaps another 33% stepping back, or leaving the service altogether.

Of course, between the advanced weapons a citizen force would capture, along with those the true military patriots bring with them, we would no longer be outgunned either.

And this to say nothing of the terrible PR that politicians behind such a move against citizens would bring. And it wouldn't be the first time if other governments around the world stepped in to help citizens of another country defend themselves against a rogue government.

Your argument is invalid as seen in my numbers, but even more so given the 234 years of real history we have on record.