I am in favor of semi-automatic rifles. Pistols and shotguns are great for self defense against criminals. Semi-automatic assault rifles are for those who come to take the guns away. I think the best defense against a corrupt government is a well armed civilian population.
I've heard many times something like: "Russia is always better armed than Finland, they win anyhow so I'm not going to armed service." Personally I feel it's not matter of winning. It's matter of not being a sitting duck. Being able to do at-least something works probably as a deterrent. Yes it's different with U.S. government vs U.S. civilian population. But how much and for how long?
Silly rabble-rousing. The government will not come knocking on your door with tanks unless you start a cult and kill a few dozen people. If you break the law, it is right and proper that you should be a sitting duck. If you don't, then the only thing you have to be worried about is the entire government someday becoming so corrupt that it pointlessly (key word) attacks its own citizens.
People from north Yugoslavia in 1991 probably thought it would be pointless for the Yugoslavian government to attack them. Actually majority of all Yugoslavians probably thought so. Algerians probably thought so too and Libyans and Egyptians. If you wish to look at democracy that fell to junta, check out Burma. And here is story about failed junta. It failed because of widespread civil disobedience. Now if you think about the year 2015 or 2030 I think you are completely right. But your constitution has stood for more than 200 years. What will U.S. look in the year 2213? What kind of laws you should now have to ensure a nice democratic state? You don't have marines vs. army and air force vs. navy just because it's handy to separate these things. You have your force divided to four sectors so that it would be difficult for military junta to form simultaneously at every military sector. Here in Finland the setting is completely different. Government doesn't have that bad monopoly of violence as it relies on civilian reserves for defense. And we don't have two party system. PS. Then there is bad stuff that doesn't require an actual attack. How would you feel if government would issue obligatory surveillance cameras to every household?
I never said the government was corrupt. I meant a well armed population is a deterrent for corruption. I'm not disputing the fact that they are better armed. However, if you outnumber a well armed group 100 to 1 you still stand a chance.they will always be better armed than the civilian populace.