I think there are some good points in here, but I always have the same question whenever this type of argument is brought up. Does it still apply? I’m not trying to be a jerk, but seriously, is the US/the world in any way similar enough to what it was back then?
I’m not a military strategist or anything now, but if a tryannical leader showed up and tried to use the US military to gain a strangle hold on the US populace, or some other far-fetched plot that seems nearly impossible given the current government system, is that even remotely stoppable from a civilian perspective?
Couldn’t they just drop cruise missiles on your house/town/city/state from the safety of a bunker somewhere and render your massive gun collection completely inadequate?
At the time the constitution was written, numbers and mobs and militias were generally an effective means of resistance, is that even remotely true nowadays? What if you and everyone you know that had guns rose up to fight the man, wouldn’t they just send a gunship your direction or something? The gap in firepower/technology from civilians to the military in 2018 is probably like comparing an elementary school science fair to NASA.
So I think I agree in the analysis of how and why the amendment was written the way it was, I’m just not sure if 200+ years later it is really applicable?
I haven’t commented on any of these threads as it’s kind of like groundhogs day over and over again. However, I see this argument more and more, and feel the counterargument is important to put out there regardless of anyone’s personal opinion.
The right to self defense and defense of property, precedes the Constitution, and is a core right of humanity that will apply for all of eternity imo. Additionally the Constitutional check on tyranny is a preemptive check on gov’t going tyrannical in the first place, as in the right to keep and bear arms protects the rights to keep and bear arms. An armed population has proven quite the challenge to our Mighty military in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc at this moment. To imply a democratic gov’t would never go tyrannical, is refuted by nearly every democracy in history. Some additional related info, Stalin rose to power in 1929 and implemented gun control in his first year. Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler all rose to power under gun registrations and bans. Castro disarmed all of Cuba upon attaining power, and Chavez banned gun ownership in 2012. History is pretty clear on this debate, which is why the founding fathers made it the second amendment directly after the right of free speech.
