[mbowcutt]

> Any person can go buy a gun and attack a mall.

Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?"

It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.

[scarface74]

Yes because a few citizens with guns are going to fight a tyrannical state that has bigger guns, nukes, tanks, bomber jets, etc.

And for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources.

[013a]

Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!

This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance.

> nukes

Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.

[scarface74]

It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.

I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.

There have been plenty of examples throughout recent history where citizens turn against each other because they believed in the cause of a charismatic leader.

Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!

And they were all funded by another superpower. Who is going to fund these rebels? The people in Waco thought they were fighting against a tyrannical government. How did that work out for them?

EDIT:

It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.

Plenty of people in rural Tenessee don’t see those “god hating west coast liberals who are part of the war on Christmas” as “sharing their values”.

It’s only been since the early 80s that the South had to get rid of laws making non heterosexual sex illegal.

How easy was it to get a bunch of people thinking that their government was being taken over by a Muslim who wanted to impose Sharia Law and get Chuck Norrus all riled up thinking that the federal government was trying to take over Texas?

[surge]

>I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.

This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp. At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.

If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods, but white ones, Koreans as a minority, were able to protect themselves in the famous "roof Korean" incident. 2A if anything protects minorities (and women who are usually at a physical disadvantage from attackers and makes them equally lethal in a situation) from being targeted with outright violence, and the first gun control laws, like those in California were a direct response to minorities (e.g. black people, Black Panthers) arming themselves to protect/assert their rights.

You don't even have to go back that far in American history to see things like coal miners arming themselves against corrupt mining companies who were literally bombing citizens.

You have a short term view of human history, you assume the status quo is permanent, and its almost like the history you were talk in school or chose to read about is selective.

[scarface74]

This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp.

You mean the same German army that it took multiple nations to defeat were going to be stopped by a minority of the population with guns? Again the Germans had tanks, WMDs, bombs, and planes.

At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.

Or they would have used the bigger weapons they already had. A government with more resources can always quash the little guy.

If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods...

And the Koreans or any of your other examples were going up against a government backed force with access to for all intents and purposes unlimited resources.

[mbowcutt]

The Bill of Rights was ratified when none of those things existed. I absolutely believe the 2A is outdated, but you must consider the reasoning its creation.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People seem to forget that first half is more important than guns.