All the guns you can hold aren't going to help when the only potable water is rationed. Historically, poisoning the public water supply was suicide. Now that we can efficiently distribute bottled water for weeks, it's a feasible strategy to break a resistance.

Second amendment remedies will be rather... lacking when it comes to 24/7 surveillance by armed drones flying above the sky.

It's scary but increasingly inevitable that panopticon surveillance of all open physical spaces will happen. Having a rifle isn't going to do much to escape or counteract that.

Maybe you're trying to be ironical, but the 2nd Amendment reads "being necessary to the security of a free State"

As in, "free to form militias to beat down slave rebellions"

So unless you've got a problem with your slaves, not sure it's so neat.

Was about to post what a perversion that interpretation is of the 2nd amendment, but holy cow can't actually argue with that.

What a shame they wrote "free state", but then again, they were forming a new government, so what should we have expected?

And if actions speak louder than words, most of the founders who served as presidents didn't exactly "walk the walk" constitutionally when they held that position.

what does, this?

> It is really scary to imagine a future where a handful of people or even a single person can physically control the entire population.

What weaponry do you think would be necessary for a civilian population to successfully repel a US Marine battalion? Is it even reasonable to expect that a civilian population would possess anywhere near the appropriate level of training for such a situation?