I must say I'm not really sure how this applies to the topic, particularly as it was written when a citizens' militia (and this is what he was talking about here, not armed individual yahoos) could achieve near enough to parity with a standing army.
Basically, Joseph Story's take is this:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet though this truth would seem so clear and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable it cannot be disguised that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline and a disposition from a sense of its burthens to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust and disgust to contempt and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights"
Next, I'm not sure what you're implying about Iran. Would they be better off if everyone had guns and/or a factional militia? Hard to say. Consider how it works in Lebanon or Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan. There's something to be said for having the means to fight . . . and you must acknowledge the considerable possibility of living in a rubble field with no clean water and no functioning hospital and watching your family die around you.
This doesn't really strike me as particularly relevant or well-thought-out. Context is relevant, right? Is this an appropriate application of a pro-gun meme?
