system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe the 2nd amendment as applied today isn't what the founders wanted. CMV

It seems the  founders believed the right to bear arms is necessary to prevent encroachment of personal freedom by the government.

Today this is clearly not being served by the 2nd amendment (ability to prevent oppressive regimes). In one corner someone with 5,000 AR-15s and in another a tank, or alternatively a predator drone or F-35). If this was the objective then clearly gun rights ought to be expanded to include rocket launchers, anti-tank mines, hollow points  etc. If you say that the military would side with the populace it is oppressing, then why the need to heavily arm the populace?

I just don't see how the current gun laws are what the founding fathers intended with respect to leveling the playing field between oppressive regimes and its citizens.

So from my point of view either you go full bore and say we really need rocket launchers and tanks etc. OR you say maybe the founding fathers were wrong about arms, like they were about women's suffrage etc.

EDIT: JimMarch mentioned the potential for assassination which I think is a reasonable argument. Sure the president etc. wouldn't be vulnerable, but it's a credible threat to people near the top/not at the top. Assassinations would be much harder without guns.

If you didn't see already, I'm largely arguing that the main deterrent against the government oppressing its own people is that it really doesn't make sense period. I was arguing that guns aren't the only thing preventing obama from being like "Screw it, let's just make elementary schools slave workshops!". I still think guns do nothing in terms of fighting the military, but I now see that they do pose some threat in terms of preventing dictators etc (or another country deciding to occupy USA) by making the individual (not the whole) feel like they could be threatened. 

**However I still believe the fetish over guns is based on the (incorrect) idea that american citizens could beat the american military (tanks, drones, aircraft carriers and all) in a fight. Oddly enough if you wanted to actually ensure greater parity campaigning for gun rights should probably be replaced with campaigns to reduce the size of the military industrial complex...my 2 cents.**
gpt
> In one corner someone with 5,000 AR-15s and in another a tank, or alternatively a predator drone or F-35). If this was the objective then clearly gun rights ought to be expanded to include rocket launchers, anti-tank mines, hollow points etc.

Tanks and predator drones can't stand on the corner and issue no-assembly edicts, nor break down your door at 3AM to search for contraband/weapons/anti-establishment propaganda. Tanks and predator drones can't enforce a police state. You need police to do that. Police are people. Small arms are effective against people.

> If you say that the military would side with the populace it is oppressing, then why the need to heavily arm the populace?

The military would side with the populace *specifically because* the populace is heavily armed. There's a lot less incentive to fire on your fellow countrymen if you know they can fire back. If you disarm the people, then suddenly there's no reason for the military *not* to side with the government. Because hey, we have AR-15s and the populace just has sticks and rocks. Easy day.