This is why I laugh at the notion that armed civilians in 21st century can stand up to a modern military force.

I suspect a couple million people armed with pistols would be pretty hard for the military to control (especially given the military is a volunteer military made up of these folks' relatives). Look what trouble we're having with Afghanistan after all... they're not terribly well armed either, and a much smaller country.

US is losing Afghanistan because they are being "nice" ie no German style genocide with a good reason, but if they wanted to they "could".

Your hypothetical "tyrannical" government that you will want to overthrow with guns will surely not be so lenient, or in other words if it was (ala Egyptian revolution) you could overthrow it with spears and few million people on the streets instead. One way or another guns not necessary.

First - Syrian military vs US military... and second -Syrians are not exactly coming out in their millions, but seems that more of the population is for Assad than for what they know will come after - "democratic" islamists. Not quite clear opposition there, but this is besides the point.

...

No it won't. Let's assume by some amazing piece of magic you manage to get enough states to actually ratify an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment. That's an impossible proposition, but for the sake of argument I'll roll with it. There are tons of guns in this country. I personally own two and will likely be buying a third in the next few weeks. I wouldn't hand them over, there's no way for the government to know that I have them, and this is true for almost all gun owners. Most states would have zero interest in enforcing this rule since their populations are pro-gun. That means the feds would be largely on their own in eliminating gun ownership, and there aren't enough federal police to do that.

That leaves millions of guns in the country and jack **** the cops can do about it.

Illegal guns get collected by state and local police, who would suddenly be made not to care because half the residents are packing anyway.

Besides, the federal government can't actually ban gun ownership; it can only ban sales. And even that is dubious. Hence California and Colorado have medical marijuana laws.

Besides, the federal government can't actually ban gun ownership; Sure it can - GET RID OF THAT STUPID OUT OF DATE SECEOND AMENDMENT. It made sense back in the 18'enth century but have no meaning today.

I think you're talking about interprovincial not international border stops. If so, it really matters where you're travelling. Much of the Alberta/BC border involves travel through National Parks, so every car without a pass is stopped. The main route from Manitoba to Ontario passes through a Manitoba provincial park and seasonal spot ckecks take place. Other than that, unless you are speeding, driving in an unsafe manner, or a cop has nothing better to do, you can move from one province to another without being stopped.

As for international crossings - yes, you get stopped and questioned every time. Once, in the mid-80s, when I was in my 20s, I was stopped at a border crossing and held for 20 minutes. The reason, it turns out, was that my name was the same as a 50-something black man wanted in the states. If only they had racially profiled me...

Federal drug crimes arise from their control of interstate commerce. So you could ban the transport of guns across state lines, but not the possession of them, generally.

You're right (BC). Drug possession is a federal crime (see the issues in California right now re: medical marijuana) The federal possession laws fall under the general laws controlling all drugs (both 'legal' prescription drugs and 'illegal'). I honestly don't know why it's constitutional, I suppose it's considered such under some theory or another. But I don't think gun possession would be.