Fair enough. Neither do I. I meant it as a rhetorical question because it's such an absurd thing to think, but I realize that wasn't necessarily clear.
> The US military is composed predominately of gun owners :).
So is the thinking that people in the military would disobey commands and join the uprising? (Or are you being entirely facetious, like the smile might suggest?)
> From my perspective, this is almost pure cognitive dissonance.
Exactly. But there are presumably smart people who make this argument. There's got to some kind of reasoning behind it. Right?
Yes. tl;have work to do: The knowledge of the potential for large portions of the population to resist oppression by use of small arms is sufficient to deter governments from radical, direct assaults on human rights.
No it isn't; the US has massive gun ownership and direct assaults on human rights. Especially of nonwhite people. The US never really "signed up to" human rights in the modern (postwar) sense.
For a single person, or a small group? I know of no one who believes that.
> The US military is vastly more powerful than any gun owner. Do people really think they can compete?
The US military is composed predominately of gun owners :).
> What's more, advocates of legal gun ownership often also push for more military spending (though that might be less true here on HN). Am I missing something here?
From my perspective, this is almost pure cognitive dissonance. They also tend to support things like NSA spying and restrictions on effective encryption.