Ford Prefect wrote:But Will you only need a hand gun to whack some guy that you think is selling out your cause. Assault rifles are for heavy fighting and if the going gets that tough the tough get heavy caliber and heavy armour, not to mention artilery and air power. The whole scenario of U.S. citizens having to oppose some portion of their government with force of arms is a fairytale told by survivalist whackos....
I don't disagree with your point really.
I was speaking to those who make the same point as you about modern technology having made the average band of civilian rifleman incapable of defending against a modern army but then they say "for that reason the second ammendment is no longer valid" or some such nonsense.
I quit killing animals because it just sort of lost it's attraction. I sold all my rifles and shotguns and now just keep a few choice pistols because the only living thing I'll ever really *need* to shoot are people.
Of course I won't repel the army with them but the second ammendment shouldn't be repealed or ignored just because one of the scenarios it's designed to protect has changed.
I have no delusions of being Rambo, however, for example, I was just looking to plan a road trip for my family and probably rent a cabin or pull a travel trailer and stay in a campground at a lake I've never been to.
I'll definitely be carrying my .40SigSauer 239 hidden inside my waistband during much of the time.
No one will know, everyone will be safe...unless some fool tries to do my family some harm in which case my odds of survival will be greatly improved.
Without the second ammendment only the criminals would be able to better their odds.
If I lived in the woods an 'assault rifle' would be a better choice and I want the option if I spend much time there....
