[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/929857/posts?page=1]IN MANY WAYS, THINGS ARE BETTER FOR US [GUN OWNERS] NOW THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.[/url]

(Freeper link to lengthy John Ross opinion piece.)

we are still heavily outgunned by the military.

at the turn of the 20th century your average citizen had the right to own any piece of hardware that was available to the armed forces.  maybe some of it was prohibitively expensive, or rare, but they still had the right.

plot a graph from then to now w/ one line representing the potential destructive power of our military and another plotting the potential destructive power of the average citizen.

the citizen's line has been making a linear climb (if not slight decline in recent years) while the military is an exponential curve that represents the destruction of thes planet many times over.

the 2nd amendment was partially a balance against a large standing army to ensure the freedom of the citizenry.  where is that balance now?  not in our hands.

Don't forget that the American military is made up of American citizens.  If the country was split down the middle, the military would be too.

good point.  i think the mantra of "act don't think" would keep the split far from 50-50 in a time of crisis, however.

I'll take issue to Ross's claims about C&R licenses.  Here in CA there are exceptions.  He probably is correct in a general sense but perceptions are important.

Most of the claims of progress are technical, i.e. better guns and more of them.

The apples and oranges comparison where we compare what military weapons a citizen could own in '32 and what they can own now seems to favor the past.  

A $200 tax on a silencer is still confiscatory, just a little less so, a GIANT mistake on their part, I'm sure.  It should be $2000 if it were typically progressive.

Summary of California C&R   (Class 03) FFL related law,  updated Jan. 1st, 2003 (note recent   paragraph requiring purchaser to buy   approved gun-locks for each weapon or have a state-approved gun-safe in their   home before taking possession of any firearms in California as of 1/1/02).

 

 Using your C&R Class 03 FFL you can buy from anyone and receive from out   of state by common carrier, in conformity with federal law,  any firearm   that cannot be readily concealed on the person, i.e. long rifle, that is a   federally defined C&R that is at least 50 years old (manufactured on or   before 1952) excluding of course   machine guns.

 

It MUST be more than 50   years old.  CZ-52's and M-44's dated   1954 are NOT C&R in California. 

 

True antiques (rifles &   pistols manufactured before January 1st, 1899)    are exempt  because they are not   considered firearms.
 
 NO PISTOL or concealable firearm,   regardless of C&R status can be ordered from out of state and shipped in,    or sold within the state  without   going through a Class 01 Dealer FFL.

 

There is now a limit of 1   pistol per 30 day period even if ordered through a dealer.    This rule applies to all pistols, including C&R pistols. There   currently (subject to change at any time) is an exception to this limit for   holders of  both a   Class 03 (C&R) FFL and COE.
 
  Within California, non dealers, which includes private parties with or without   a Class 03 (C&R) FFL license, can sell each other any rifle that cannot be   readily concealed on the person that is a federally defined C&R that is   more than 50 years old (except to minors, drug addicts and those with   felony or certain misdemeanor criminal records). This is supposed to be on   an occasional basis only - a fuzzy concept for which you must check the   statutes and case law yourself, but a few a year is probably ok.  Just   don't make a business of it.
 

True.  i think that would be the case in a sudden national emergency.  But I bet you can sense a revolution coming.  If there was a revolution in '09, I doubt very many soldiers would take orders from Hillary Clinton.  They would most likely join forces with the people in their hometown.