[rayiner]

The 2A doesn’t protect the use of arms against the government, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that. The point is to prevent the government from disarming the populace before such action might be required.

[dragonwriter]

Actually, no, the point is to prevent the government from deciding it needs to rely on professional police and military forces for day-to-day defense against domestic and international security threats, instead relying on ad hoc levies from the general population for those purposes, making it unthinkable both in terms of capacity and inclination that the “government security services” could suppress the general civilian population, since the former as a separate group by profession, class, etc.—but for very small standing cadres providing institutional knowledge and continuity—would not exist. But that ship has rather sailed, and the 2A failed in its purpose, but it still hangs around, and even it's defenders have forgotten what it was there for.

[komali2]

> I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that

Oh, well, I have, and that's the kind of 2A advocate I'm talking about.

I'm sure there are other sorts, but that's the kind I meant.

[jki275]

A better way to state that would be that the existence of an armed populace is to deter tyrannical actions from the government.