Not being a US citizen, I was struck by how many pro-gun arguments were based on the need to have armed militias should the government go North Korean on everyone's ass.

But here's my question, doesn't the US government have a defense budget of like a gazillion dollars and doesn't a "well-armed militia" have a budget of, like, the corner deli? Do you honestly believe that a well-armed militia could really take out the US government's ass? I'm guessing when the constitution was framed, a group of men with a lot of guns could put up a decent fight. But now? I'd say I have a better chance of becoming the Ultimate Fighting champion. So I'm guessing all you (potential) militiamen have some martyr complex, kind of like a lot of people in Al Qaeda. Or you really believe you can beat the US government in an armed conflict. Well, all the luck to ya. Really.

Second question: on a googolplex to one chance, let's say a militia or a group of 'em do manage to topple the tyrannical government. Historically speaking, when a ragtag band topples a government or monarchy or whatever, things turn pretty funky soon after. The US is an anomaly in that way. Obvious standard examples: South America/Africa. Even if you look at European or Asian history, things turn pretty bloody for a while after any successful putsch because it's everyman for himself trying to grab power. What makes you think, just because the US had a (relatively) peaceful post-revolution stage, that you'll have a carbon copy of the US circa 1789 after YOUR revolution? And I doubt 1789 was a peachy time to live. Omygawd, no deodorant!

So please enlighten me. Since I was unfortunate enough to be born in a place where civilians are not allowed to have guns.