Are you implying the government would use missiles or nukes on its own people on US soil? A drone makes sense considering it would limit any unnecessary loss of life but to nuke your own country would be insanity on a level yet unseen, especially considering you cannot control fallout or nuclear winter.

But lets look at this scenario a little closer and with more care. If there was a large scale insurrection here in the US I’d imagine our government would have a difficult time weeding out the revolutionaries from the civilians so you end up with urban warfare on a similar scale to Afghanistan. The US would be forced to use our troops or most likely UN troops to restore peace because they would be concerned about US soldiers siding with the citizenry and defecting or just abandoning their posts. They would avoid any overt large strike military action like bombing or missiles because it would only widen the rift between the people and the government and swell the rebellions ranks. They would have to win the war of public opinion as well as the battles themselves or it still may end up all for naught with American citizens saying they would refuse to support a government that murders it’s subjects in cold blood. If you doubt people would say enough is enough and try and fight to overthrow the government just look at the current outrage over the these most recent police shootings, imagine the outrage if a US city was nuked or even carpet bombed to quell a rebellion. How would anyone stand by the government when they slaughter thousands of men women and children — citizens no less.

So let’s think about what a rebellion would need to operate and actively fight against opposing ground forces, they would need weapons of similar capability to be able to resist that force. People get so polarized over the 2nd Amendment that they lose sight of why it’s there in the first place -to ensure the people could be the final check and balance should the government no longer serve the will of its people. Would said conflict be easy? No it would be a bloody affair especially when you think about a structured and trained military against civilians with non-automatic weapons, but it has been done before here and across the world.

Tyrants seek control over the people and an unarmed populace is extremely easy to keep in line. Ask the farmers in China who rebelled against the their government for centuries (with only farm tools as weapons)until they finally where able to break the Dynasties control once thye too were properly armed. Or how the British took away all guns in India after their first attempt at independence from British Colonialism failed (1857) the British know unarmed people can’t compete with armed soldiers.

All that aside let’s say that our government does take away our guns, and that doesn’t end up starting a revolution here. Then what’s to stop them from taking away free speech, private property, or our right to even decide who leads? What will our already overworked police force do here when criminals with illegal guns run rampant? If you don’t think that’s possible take a look at the full scale war the cartels south of our border wage against the unarmed people of Mexico. I want each person who is so willing to surrender their liberties (and it won’t stop with just guns) to be aware of what the consequences of that can be. Since now the only weapon we can weild against the government would be words sooner or later freedom of speech will be legislated away to ensure pacification. And don’t think for a minute that it couldn’t happen here, as this has happened everywhere else in the world at one time or another.

The slope gets slippery when you barter liberty for alleged safety. Take that into account when you speak so brazenly about offering up all of our freedoms for the safety the government will promise but fall short of ever providing all of us.