It's not like that, though, it's "Well regulated militias will keep the government in check; the right to own guns will not be infringed."
You're arguing that "it's not cherry-picking when it's half the sentence" while simultaneously cutting off the other half of the sentence
The problem with that is that "Well regulated militias" affects the meaning of "the right to own guns will not be infringed.
Moreover, within the last century, we have started treating it like what many think it means now. i.e. right to bear arms for all people. Before that, we treated it as having the right only for militia use
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
For instance, if the sentence were to mean that all people had the right to keep and bear arms, it would just use " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because it includes ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,." it is highly likely that this is meant to change the overall meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is the product of age old colonialism and modern day globalism. It's true it is advanced, but's not the only high tech army out there.
However as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, drones are pretty ineffective against low tech asymmetrical forces. We've been fighting the Taliban since 2001 and we are in 2015 and the Taliban is still around. Obama even said we are expected to be there until 2017. Drones only carry two small hellfire missiles.
In Vietnam we tried bombing North Vietnam into the stone age. All north Vietnam had was Hanoi which was a just a small shanty concrete city with no electricity, and tons of bamboo villages. Tons of B-52s droppings many bombs, blowing miles of jungle, and we still didn't achieve anything. South fell to communism despite the effort of our big and vast high tech air force at the time.
Heck the North had the Support China and Russia. Look at the FSA and the Kurds fighting today. We don't like Assad, we give Assads enemies weapons. If a civil war broke out in the US today, Russia, China, and whoever doesn't like the US would immediately start funneling weapons over the rebels side to win them over in hopes of establishing a puppet regime. There are plenty of times in the cold war to show where this has happened.
That is a good point, though it is possible that nuclear warfare could break out due to the resulting conflict. Either you defeat the government and are a puppet regime, or you get nuked by either the US/ one of the US's enemies.
Poll