I dream many dreams, like a country devoted to its constitution, a federal government which taxes little and spends less, a land where liberty thrives, dreams that are no more likely than a dream of a stagnant or shrinking population.
You apparently not only have given up on these dreams but you relish the prospects of a swarming of population and a shrinking of liberty. You can have a swelling population or you can enjoy your Second Amendment rights but, ultimately, you cannot have both. You can have a swelling population or you can have liberty of disposition over your own real estate but you cannot have both. The list goes on and on.
For the record, I have never advocated a reduction of nukes. I have been on the side of Eisenhower on that matter since the 1950s. Without nukes, population means a great deal, with them, population becomes targets.
“You can have a swelling population or you can enjoy your Second Amendment rights but, ultimately, you cannot have both.”
The population has practically doubled in my lifetime and now I can carry guns around and buy 50 cals. Seems to me that both is possible - provided that the makeup of the population is correct (which I pointed out earlier). The idea that there is some upper limit to population bothers me - in theory there might be (and there probably is), but that limit is defined by the capability of the people and is likely very, very, high. When the indians ruled, 2,000,000 was the most this land could sustain, and no doubt that there were some chiefs worried about “over active” squalls, even then.