After all this time ghrit posted to the previous (long ago locked) thread so here is my response. everything in quotes are from their post. “Couple things stand out. You don't want of [to] out anyone, yet you as [ask] a very specific question regarding talking up arms against the government. “ This is the classic case of assigning a straw man to your opponent so you can claim victory when the strawman falls. Yawn. If you have not seriously thought about what it would take for you to take up arms against the government (i.e. be willing to shoot someone) then your claim that the possible need to do so is why you keep arms, seems invalid to me. Given that whatever this situation might be you would likely be met with overwhelming force it really equates to what the government would have to do in order for you to risk your life, or possibly your family’s lives to oppose it. It is an extremely difficult question, but if that is a key part of your basis for gun ownership it seems to me to deserve to be answered. This is not about specific people, places, institutions, etc. but just in general. Taxes too high? Regulation too overreaching? Property seized via eminent domain? People conscripted into an unsupported war? All these things have happened or are happening with no armed opposition. What major push back to the government HAVE been (at least somewhat) successful? Civil rights come to mind and not by force of arms. “.. you evidently intend to mimic a lamb and do what you're told without questioning the authority of whoever it is that orders you about.” Again, the strawman. You not only know nothing of me, but completely disregard the impact of propaganda on the public. Information is the weapon of choice in our age, not guns. The “do what you’re told” implies some level of resistance, but compliance in spite of that. This is not how propaganda works. You first convince the public that they WANT to do whatever, then they do so willing. “Back to school laddie, you didn't get the core curricula, learned COBOL instead of civics. You really do need to read the Federalist Papers.” Again, with the schoolyard name calling (doesn’t it get tiresome?). Doing so only convinces me that you can offer no other defense of your position. I have never said I’ve read (the entirety) of the Federalist Papers (I seriously doubt anyone here including you has either). I have read bits and pieces over the years and while they are interesting historical documents their authors were totally ignorant of the role of information and propaganda in use today or of the character of today’s civilization (how could they be otherwise?). In 46 Madison makes the case that an armed citizenry would be the last defense against what he outlines as a basically unimaginable result. Here is they lead into that That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. … Then he goes on to say that even in this case the military would be no match for an armed public due to the public outnumbering the military. I think this is false for several reasons. First the way that such unimaginable events would occur is not by complacency of the public but by convincing the public to act against their own self interests. It’s the post truth world. This is the essence of propaganda. Given that why would there then be some armed uprising? The public was in favor of these actions. Secondly comparing the total number of armed members of the population against the total size of the military is silly. Such conflicts would take place on a much smaller scale where the public would likely be wildly out gunned in any one encounter. Third it relates such a conflict to the society of 200 years ago not the vastly interconnected one we have today. Merely cutting off services to any uprising group would likely be all that would be needed to quash the rebellion. But again, the key reason this is no longer relevant is the role of information. For example, no matter what your view of our current President you cannot deny that a (if not the) central theme of his administration is controlling the narrative regardless of facts. Even if your response would be that he does so only due to the press constantly making up news and being all against hm (which I think is ludicrous) my point is still made. It’s all about information. Lastly Madison basically says that despite the need for an armed public being unimaginable we might as well have one. i.e. there is little or not cost. But now we see there IS a cost. i.e. gun deaths. So if the purpose is really unimaginable then is the cost worth it? “The thread is locked, so start another one if you care to. I'm actually not happy you've not been back, but I understand it. Nobody likes stepping in a basket of biting snakes.” Hardly an apt analogy. I didn’t come back as it did not seem there was any appetite for an actual discussion (it wasn’t my posts that got the previous thread locked) so to each their own. But since you asked here is a new thread. Given the likelihood of being vastly outnumbered I can not ensure a response to every post but will come back now and then to see what's here.