Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[Chesspiece_face]

Currently, the worst case scenario (I'm thinking more like a rancher shootout with the Juarez cartel here) we citizen would normally face would be on the level of an AK47 or M16 variants, with the standard 30 round magazine. The practical rate of fire for them is 100-150 rpm in burst, however... Army ammo guidelines (10 Kg) would suggest the maximum rounds carried for AK to be about 300, and for M16 about 900 -- but, the real sustained firepower limitation is barrel heating which limits the effective rate of fire to about 12-15 rpm (similar to a bolt action). If you had to defend yourself in this type of scenario, you'd want enough "firepower" to hold out until the authorities arrived to take over which could be 30 minutes or more depending on how far away they might be.

But, I think it should mostly be up to the lawful citizen to make up their own mind on how they choose to defend themselves without also becoming a threat (e.g. rockets, mortars, tanks, nukes). Philosophically, I'm somewhat ambivalent about automatic weapons, or mortars, or tanks. They really are more "Army" weapons, than "Militia" weapons. I think a civilian should be able to get a limited use permit to own one if they can document their need for one. An example, would be a company that is seeking to build military weapons to sell to our, or other nations military.

Is this a realistic threat on the southern border? I am aware enough of the drug conflicts that occur there but have to admit to a level of ignorance when it comes to actual armed conflicts between our citizens and the cartels. If there are realistic examples of this I'd be interested in looking into them. On the other hand, it seems like a ripe example for people to run to for hypotheticals as opposed to real examples of 'need'. If that's the case it's not much better than a Red Dawn claim to the need for a certain type of weapon. Invading Russians (or North Koreans in the new remake is it?) isn't a very realistic argument.

In other realistic examples of adequate force to defend oneself and property I go back to looking at weapons strictly as tools and for their functionality. If someone was breaking into my home with an assault rifle I frankly wouldn't want to have 'equal' force as them. The risk of a full-out high caliber shoot out in the halls of my home are not something I deem as a reasonable outcome. It seems much more reasonable to want an accurate, small profile hand gun to remove the threat. Or conversely a shotgun. That's me though, and really besides the point.

I think the main point I wanted to get at, and may have entirely skipped over in my original post, is the default call to arms against the Government whenever an election or vote doesn't go the way you want it to. The Second Amendment is not a guarantee to majority opinion and an evolving society, culture, and Government isn't the same as Government overreach.