Originally Posted by tony hipchest
in other words the original intent is vastly outdated and to try to live by it literally, is suicide.
The intent foresaw the dilemma.
Disarming either side isn't practical. And citizens can't afford the gear the gubmint has, although that would be a better use of "stimulus money" than some of the @#$% the gubmint wastes money on.
IMHO, and in keeping with the "spirit" of the amendment, the Swiss solution gives us practical guidance. Everybody should have the opportunity to be trained (we do) and be armed (we don't) the same "small arms" the armed forces use.
I live outside of a southern NFL city known for its gangs. The gangs are armed to the teeth, so much so that the gubmint not only can't match them, the gubmint "deals" with the situation by ignoring it. Kids take their automatic weapons to school. Kids have stuff like M-60s.
In any scenario, the only purpose police serve is post incident documentation. Anyone that thinks the police will protect you is seriously deluded. Throughout our history that is why folks have been armed. And as the society continues to break down the need to be armed accelerates.
Retros know that it is their responsibility to protect and defend their families.
So where is the line? I couldn't afford an F22 and its support. And I @#$%ed well couldn't fly it. And while I'm comfortable at speed in the snow, I'd be skittish in an Abrams.
But I think the Barrett Model 95 is an excellent choice for the urban rooftop, and crude as they are, the Kalashnikov line of sporting equipment is great for that "close in" work. And they're cheap and reliable.