Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
Um... now, let me preface this by saying that I'm very much in favor of gun rights. But to say that an armed populace is not a threat to a nation doesn't really make sense. Of course it's a threat to a nation--that's the whole point, as you outlined yourself in the paragraphs following. An armed populace is an explicit threat that if the government of the nation fails to execute its duties properly, it will be removed.

The problem, such as it is, is that the entirety of the armed populace isn't in agreement about what proper execution of government duties consists of. In a less beneficial sense, a subsection of the armed populace can be just as much of a threat--as in, actual threat, not enforcer of the national will--to the nation as, say, nineteen guys and two airplanes can. It's as unwise to turn a blind eye to that sort of threat as it is to turn a blind eye towards union violence.

What concerns me on a personal level is who the most vociferous gun-holders are. If they had their druthers, people like me would be as unwelcome as if those nineteen guys had gotten theirs.
But you are right, we often confuse the two. An armed populace is no risk to a nation, but is indeed a tremendous risk to governments who lose their focus on what is truly important. Most of the most drawn out messes we have gotten ourselves into (Vietnam and now Afghanistan to name but two) are where we come to mistake the preservation of a government for the preservation of the Nation.

Often the government we are working with is the problem and must either evolve or be replaced by legal or illegal means by the populace of that land (the land and the people and the heritage being the greatest components of a "nation," with government being perhaps the least imporant component of any equation that adds up to equaling "nation.")

Trees are to Forest as Government is to Nation. Sometimes you have to burn some trees to make the forest healthy again.