This smells like ExxonMobil.

It would be a deterrent, for an all out occupation (meaning it would be nearly impossible to actually take us over without an indefinite insurgent activity). The likelihood of said occupation would be very, very minuscule as a result of our nuclear weapons, so on that point we would agree completely.

In fact, the ownership of nukes would prevent nearly any full scale invasion for any country. Hostile take-overs today would be done by other means; either economic, or the takeover of political influence, etc. This brings us to an entirely different scenario.

#1. Economic takeover could leave a country broke, diminished welfare and social services leaving the public to fend for themselves for food, shelter, protection, etc. There public ownership of weapons would help to balance power.

#2. Political influence would obviously involve corruption of a system and manipulating policies toward the benefit of said nation. People can only be taken advantage of for so long before becoming angered. With a well armed populace you would have to keep things much more subtle as political powers could potentially be overthrown and even local police forces rendered useless when enough citizens revolt.

The above ties into the primary reason for not infringing on our second amendment. When a government becomes too corrupt, and i mean to the point of those speaking out suddenly disappearing and citizens on large scales being detained (in camps and such). In this case citizens can stop abductions (or at least have a chance to), and overthrow efforts to imprison towns/cities, etc.

Now, the government's weapons are much bigger, and more powerful, but the use of said weapons (for instance dropping a nuke on a revolting city), or large scale use of bombs/drones/etc. would be VERY tough to keep under wraps to other citizens, other countries, and even large amounts of our own military members would turn their backs on the powers that be saying "that's just F-ed up".

Again assault weapons would only aid such an effort on the above scale, but the government can be corrupted by any force, not just foreign military. Corporations, for example, banks have a HUGE influence on our government and its policies. Regardless of the force performing the takeover the result is ultimately the same... People will be taken advantage of progressively until it becomes enslavement. But people usually break, and get very angry before this occurs. The 2nd amendment ensures they have the power to direct that anger toward the enemy trying to enslave them.

That being said. The department of justice statistics and FBI records show that gun control has no impact on gun-related crime. This stands true for the Clinton era assault weapons bans, as well as on gun laws/revocation of said laws on major U.S. cities. This leads to me ask the very important question; "Why are they still trying to pass new restrictions?"

Apologies for the long-winded response.

Goodnight my bothers and sisters for now