The belief that our government does not wish to be tyrannical to its citizens is an argument FOR gun rights. Do not mistake the effect of gun rights as an argument against gun rights. A government that fears its citizens is a good one, whereas a government that instills fear in its citizens is a bad one.
If you're willing to surrender your firearms and fight for your fellow countrymen to surrender theirs also, you are outright handing the Government full control over you and your family. "I have a hunch that the Government wouldn't take your guns, and even if they did you couldn't win that fight anyway" is the position of a coward. You can have my gun alright, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
This country's Second Amendment says that people "have the right to bear arms." That means we the people can have guns. The US has a long history of wars and what did we use to protect ourselfs? Guns. What did we use to free europe from Hitler? Guns. So we the people can have guns.
A long time ago, a British monarch told the Americans to pay taxes we didn't like. So we used our guns to brak away from them so you guys can argue like this. Adolf Hitler also told the Jews that they didn't need guns because the government would protect them. Joseph Stalin said the same to his people. Mao Zedong said the same. They all also said that the government would protect them, they didn't need guns. Look what has happened. Histor does tend to repeat itself no matter our morale and technological advances.
Without physical power in the hands of the people to government can do whatever it likes. Of course there are no dictators in Western society today but it is extremely possible that during a crisis people will be misled to vote for a person like Hitler or Trump who does turn out to be a tyrant. The only way democracy can be reinforced is through guns.
Our founding fathers used guns to win our liberty. But, like our founding fathers, our government is based on hippocracy; the second amendment states that we have the right to bare arms, yet the government is taking them away. Our government does not pursue liberty, but people who think that guns are the basis of liberty do.
If the government wanted to come and take your house and turn your kids into communists, the would have done it already. Gun control laws are not in place so you can't defend yourself from the "tyrannical" government, it's to keep mentally ill people from getting a machine gun and blowing away two dozen people in 30 seconds. Besides, the majority of Americans don't have or want guns. Even if the military did come to your house (they won't) how could you outgun them? If they were serious, they would have body armor and more powerful weapons. But they don't. So no, gun rights are not the beachead of liberty, and nobody's going to come and take away your freedom because you don't have guns.
The American government would not be tyrannical for eliminating gun rights. We Americans have many liberties. (free speech, education, police, etc.)
In the year 2013, 12,043 people died from shootings! If our government wants to take away gun rights, then it means that our government wants to prevent THOUSANDS of deaths from happening.
If our government was truly tyrannical, then they would take away our free speech. They would take away our access to police service. They would take away our rights to free education! They would not take away our guns!
I fail to see how gun rights can in any way, be considered an accurate representation of liberty. Guns have historically been used to achieve objectives that diplomacy wasn't able to, or simply when diplomacy wasn't intended to be used, and someone wanted to simply take something that belonged to someone else. I agree that in certain situations when non-lethal methods haven't been able to de-escalate the danger that something or someone, a gun is the best solution for survival, but that doesn't mean that gun rights are the representation of what liberty is. On the contrary, guns are the last resort that someone, like private homes, need an armory of guns, or any guns at all to protect their homes. Things like mace, tasers, and other non-lethal options can be effectively used to achieve the same results in regards to rendering a possible threat unable to cause any harm, or any further harm if someone has already been done.
Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed, he used to get naked while he smoked on the weed. Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed, he used to get naked while he smoked on the weed. Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed, he used to get naked while he smoked on the weed. Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed, he used to get naked while he smoked on the weed.