> with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided I think your ideas are adorable. An armed populace is extreme

> with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided I think your ideas are adorable. An armed populace is extremely effective in curbing government crackdown on people and yes, that is even true for small arms weapons aside from the fact that US soldiers would probably defect en masse. You think they would roll out the tanks? Even if they did, that is a fight no army could ever win. The Taliban started with sticks and stones and ended with attack helicopters. I am not from the US and I don't think there is a more successful democracy or nation for that matter, so maybe other can learn a bit. The French Revolution was armed and an armed populace is a classical fear of rulers and the motivation for weapon laws. There are advantages for policing of course. Policemen in Europe can be relatively sure they aren't fired upon in many cases and that results in completely different form of conduct with state executive forces. But there are other arguments for the US to allow arms, for topological and geographical reasons alone.