I don't think that they realistically expect domestic firearms to be able to fight back against the government as much as they are making a point of principle that the government should not have the right to disarm the citizenry. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, this would have been a pretty reasonable argument, and was no doubt a good part of the reason for the Second Amendment. People that make this argument probably don't imagine using their Glock .45 against the U.S. Army, but want to have every means possible to be able to protest the government, including the protection from this form of government intervention. Or they could be delusional.
-------
Thousands of points available by entering the Contests Contest!!
680 users online 
165819 members 
You have 1 new message.
Patron
