Drones thus far are very ineffective when it comes to taking out large groups of people. Also being able to fire 1000 rounds a minute can actually make something less dangerous, there is a limit to how much those things can carry. That's why soldiers don't usually use the "full-auto" feature on military rifles...
The fact is the Obama Administration has behaved in a manner that justifies people being paranoid about the government.
So, the narrative is that the 2nd amendment was supposed to be for when there were muskets and low powered rifles to worry about, not nukes.
The "they have better weapons than we do, so we should abandon ours because fighting is futile" argument is hackneyed and illogical. Even if you brought a knife to a gun fight, what person trying to survive would say, "oh, gun beans knife... might as well give up my better weapon"? If people actually cared about a well regulated militia part of the 2nd amendment, there would be more outrage for civilians to be able to acquire more comparable weapons according to technological trajectory. Does that mean grant people the right to nukes? No. Does it mean that if the police are becoming more militarized, the people should have a fighting chance with comparable weapons? YES.
I don't think people understand that the population of the States is a static militia, and it is the citizens job as much as it is the military to protect the country through diplomacy and/or military and militia. It is folly to accept increasingly abusive and militarized police, willingly allow the military to spend $ tens of billions of your tax dollars to make machines to "take out large groups of people," and then whine that civilians are the scary ones with hand guns, and rifles. If the "your is bigger than mine, so why bother with mine" argument was actually valid, then Boeing and Lockheed Martin would be bankrupt, since a lot of countries have pressure, nuclear, fusion, neutron, sonic electrical bombs, and satellite black ops technologies that could take out entire cities, military batteries and bases. No, they still make fighter jets and low yield weapons because they are
tactical. Just because you have an assault rifle, drone, tank, "big dog," doesn't mean it is the ideal weapon to use. You don't nuke or bomb places that are valuable; this is why 2 superpowers (US and USSR) failed and collapsed when trying to fight "cave dwelling goat herders who are equipped with rifles and RUDIMENTARY incendiaries. Do you think an Afghani said, "The USSR has the Tsar bomb, and tanks and air ships. Let's give up; our rifles are useless. No. They knew some fight was better than no fight, and the more astute of them realized the USSR would be forced to use weapons they could fight against as to avoid destroying the land and resources. Defense goes way beyond the largest weapon. Does no one read Sun Tzu?
