I don't thiink so.

If deomocats get a stronger majority, yes.

@OldMetalHead I dojn't think so.

@OldMetalHead This "issue" highlights a tension which has always been there that maybe our external enemies, like Russia, are working to exploit, by weakening the bonds holding us together (the Democratic ideal of collective cooperation), and strengthening (by any means available to them) the forces turning us against each other (the Republican ideal of individualistic self-interest). Once the balance between the two is upset in favor of the "freedom" of the individual, over his or her responsibilities to respect the needs and rights of the group as a whole, then democracy ceases to be able to provide the necessary balance between the two.
Maybe the Russians (or whoever "they" are) recognize that corporations have a built-in organizational advantage, so work to further strengthen their hand (through the Republican party writ large), reasoning it would hasten the fulfillment of the Marxist doctrine that laborers will eventually, inevitably, rise up and overthrow their masters. Anything to defeat capitalism, they may think.
Was this why Putin was so helpful to the Republicans?
So maybe it's not mainly about guns and militias or any other single issue; maybe not even about politics per se at all, for that matter,, but more about protecting our core ethos of protecting and enhancing the rights of the individual through collective agreement and cooperation. If too-sizable a percentage of our citizens lose their belief in the ability or desire of our government to uphold this principle, all that's left is either anarchy or dictatorship.
Just a.disjointed, dispirited,, off-the-top-of-my head thought. There are obviously many other external and internal groups and/or forces at play, which together or separately, knowingly or not, are tearing our country apart.
It would be helpful to identify most or all of them..
Maybe we need a McCarthy-like Senate committee to do the job.
By comparison, any one issue is merely a symptom of a much larger, more serious problem.

@OldMetalHead I understand, the militias are intimidating, but mostly as a sign of an underlying rot eating away at the foundations of our system of government. The only way they'd pose a threat is if someone like Trump--but not necessarily only him--mobilized them to disrupt elections, either at polling stations, or at election offices where they count the votes They might not even WAIT for a command from on high; it could all be organized and mobilized through the internet.
But not as a force capable of toppling the federal government. State governments? I don't know, I guess it's possible if the REAL militias--the National Guard, police, U.S. troops stationed at military bases, etc.--were sympathetic and either stood down or actually joined them, but that seems like a fantasy right out of white supremacist handbook! But hey, anything seems plausible these days!
If you ask me, we should call a constitutional convention to abolish our hopelessly flawed two-party system in favor of a parliamentary one, IF we could be sure it wouldn't spiral out of control with potentially catastrophic results. Of course, that's impossible.
Let's face it, we're stuck with what we have.
If you ask me, we're on the defensive and the best we can hope for is keeping at least one house of Congress in 2022, and of course the presidency in 2014, but both of those things are far from certain.
Scary.

NO, IT DOES NOT! No person who is fully familiar with our constitution and its provisisions can say that.

Accepted by whom? What kind of government puts the right of others to take military against itself!?

It says a "well-regilated militia," which the Supreme Court agrees allows regulations like background checks, closing the "gun show loophole," a ban on assault weapons, etc., so the exact wording is irrelevant; it's obviously self-contradictory and makes no sense.
The real problem is political, not literal.

Please quote the section of the US Constitution that allows revolt against the USA…

Such groups are more numerous than you seem to believe. They are dangerous.

Most of the private militias I've heard of are rooted in some twisted religious ideologies.
They aren't remotely interested in "saving" the country.
They're far more interested in changing it to suit their agendas.
In that respect, they are no different from any jihadist or other terrorist group.

They are useless to democracy. Period.

@wordywalt maybe but most of what you are proposing here is already law. Arsenal hoarding is already illegal. The ATF have used this law against gun collectors in the past, making the collector a felon and no longer legally allowed to own firearms. This happens more than you may believe. Sounds like tyrannical government to me.

@Tejas Sounds like common sense to me.

What @KKGator said. They are practically all Christian Fundamentalists. They want a theocracy, not democracy. They think they are saving the country while they are in reality ready and willing to destroy democracy and the rule of law. January 6 was not about saving democracy, yet that's the sort of action that militias here embrace.

@Gwendolyn2018 Well stated!

I am not opposed to private individual ownership of shotguns and rifles for personal use not related to threatening and hurting other people. I am opposed to group ownership and use of guns.

We do need state initiated militias such as the National Guard. Any other form of militias should be outlawed.

@wordywalt Well maybe not totally outlawed, but definitely denied any kind of official capacity or recognition.

@snytiger6 Not outlawing such groups would grant them some legitimacy.

@wordywalt Well, the problem seems to be where to draw the (legal) line, and drawing in such a way to keep freedom(s) in tact.