Our founding fathers wisely set this up in the constitution by prohibiting a standing army in times of peace. It is the only case I know of in history where a government was given limits on how many guns it could have.
Our own government has demonstrated its ability to use WMD at the conclusion of WWII. They deemed it necessary to bomb Japan twice publicly to "keep the peace".
So how does it make sense to pursue the transfer of military power to a central world government has has been US policy since 1961? Is this the policy of the people over our leaders or did such a policy come from another quarter?
Note the increasing number of public mass shootings being reported by the media. These do not seem to take place in places where guns are commonly held (Israel, police departments, military bases, or communities that commonly carry firearms). In fact these events mostly happen at disarmed locations (theatres, public schools, etc.) I am actually very surprised one hasn't yet happend at a TSA weapons inspection site yet.
All common sense logic, human nature, and history to me seem to point to limiting the arms of the government and allowing individuals the power to defend themselves as the best course to peace and tranquility.
If one were to simply watch an action movie from the 1980s (I recerntly saw the Blues Brothers for example) you will see how pathetically armed the police of that day were compared to today. There has been a trend in weapons management over the past several decades that seems to coincide with the quantity of mass shootings. Arming the police or government at any level does not seem to promote tranquility to me.
Why this thought seems to not be carried along in the public square to me is evidence of attempts to direct the thinking of the minds of Americans to support interests of those who wish to use government to violate individual and property rights to their benefit.l l Many Americans are seeing this as gun sales would indicate.
Can we turn things back to a more peaceful past? I hope so.
