The American 2nd Amendment is an outdated piece of sh**

DT, Thank you for your excellent opening salvo. I agree that the First Amendment is far more important than the Second, and should indeed be the first and primary option in opposition to threats of any kind, be they personal or political. I also completely agree that civilians have no role in law enforcement. Onto the matter at hand: You asserted, “Guns don’t protect Liberty. They encourage retaliation with military force” You said, “In Myanmar, armed citizenry was the convenient excuse for racial segregation and genocide that prevailed for half a decade.” I submit the estimated 40 million deaths in the Soviet Union and Communist China [1] to serve as ample evidence that being unarmed is not without significant risk for citizenry as well. And personally, I’d rather die in a gunfight than a death camp. But that’s just me. Speaking more broadly about the help that using the First Amendment could bring from the international community: why did social media help in Myanmar and other places? I submit that it’s because there were larger, more potent political and military powers available and willing to assist the citizens. What larger power is going to assist American citizens if we are repressed by our own government? I believe you made this point quite aptly in “Modern Military 101.” What if the First Amendment is curtailed to the point where its liberties are irrelevant? Consider “political correctness.” Is the word “nig-er” protected (I find it so offensive, I can’t even leave it written out) by the your free speech guarantees in the First Amendment? Yes. In theory. But in practice, it can lead to charges of harassment, abuse, and even a “hate” crime if combined with criminal action. The First Amendment is not absolute. And I don’t think it unreasonable to consider the possibility that the limitations would be extended to political opposition or dissidence. Consider the word “Jihad.” It strikes as probable that this conversation just went from one level of NSA interest to another. Modern Military 101 The purpose of a violent civilian uprising would not be military victory. As you noted, that's an absurdity. Rather, the purpose would be to alert those in power that its citizens are so fed up with the regime that they are willing to die for change. That is a powerful message, even without a hope of military “victory.” Oppression, Tyrannical States and Restricting the Power of Government I completely agree with your assertion that democracy has worked well in the United States. But as any financial planner will promise: “past performance does not guarantee future results.” Two centuries of democratic success does not insure a future without tyranny. History is littered with nations that skipped along happily until power fell into the wrong hands. Our past success simply means we’ve done a good job of avoiding it for the last two centuries. There are plenty of warning signs that the “checks and balances” that have been so essential to the stability of this nation are being discarded as wealth and power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. As Louis Brandeis said, “we may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” As this has increasingly been the case [3], our democracy has looked increasingly like a kleptocracy [4]. .4% of the population makes 63.5% (!!!!) of the donations to political campaigns in the U.S. [5]. What do they get for that money? A system designed, in essence, to protect itself. A system that can protect the interest of large corporate contributors by making life harder on small businesses [6]. The much bigger danger over time is political repression. If you believe that could never happen here, I remind of you of mass surveillance programs that violate the 4th amendment [7], yet are currently keeping track of an astonishing amount of our online activity [8]. The President has a “hit list” [9], and the administration has authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen for political reasons [10]. The most important implication is that these developments hint at (or prove) the disregard for “law”. Quoting David Sirota at Salon.com: “This new claim that evidence is not required to kill someone is the true foundation of Too Big to Curtail. To really appreciate how extreme the whole concept is, understand that it is already blatantly illegal for a president to execute an American citizen without so much as a indictment. Indeed, if the constitutional notion of “due process” means anything at all, at minimum it means at least being formally charged with a single crime. But in the new white paper, the Obama administration isn’t just laying waste to that most basic of ideas — it is going further and insisting that even within the extra-constitutional “kill list” deliberations inside the White House, the president doesn’t actually need evidence to order someone’s death.” This is patently Stalin-esque. I’d say it’s quite sensible to keep guns handy. Just in case. Provide additional security for the state In general, I agree with your assertion. But were we to be invaded by a foreign nation, I believe having armed citizens would be useful. Imagine the frustration of an invading soldier who kicks in the door of a house only to be shot dead by an old man sitting at the kitchen table. It is exactly the trouble that our own soldiers have faced in foreign lands - there is no clear way to identify threats. Would citizens defeat an invading army by themselves? No. Would it be a tremendous nuissance for the invaders? Yes. And so I disagree with your assertion that citizens have nothing to contribute to the defense of the motherland. Self-defense I agree that alternative weapons (tasers, pepper spray, as you mentioned) are preferable in most modern social situations. That said, I can also understand why someone - especially someone trained - would want to have one by their bedstand if they live in a bad neighborhood. Most of “better” options require much closer proximity to the target, which increases personal risk. Guns have the benefit of being able to shoot from great distance. This research survey from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [2] suggests there is no correlation (or perhaps even an inverse correlation) between guns and murders. In a table comparing European gun ownership and murder rates from the early 2000’s, the results are extremely counter intuitive: Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownership Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000 Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0 Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000 Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000 Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000 Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500 France 1.65 [2003] 30,000 Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000 Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000 Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000 Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000 My own addition: Hunters What of hunters? I am not a hunter, but I hear they exist. In fact, it’s reported that there are over 12 million of them in the United States [12]. What of their rights? In closing, I believe I have shown in the arguments above that the second amendment remains a relevant and useful part of the Bill of Rights. [1]: http://www.snopes.com... [2]: http://www.law.harvard.edu... [3]:http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4]: http://www.nytimes.com... [5]: http://www.opensecrets.org... [6]: http://educationviews.org... [7]: http://www.law.cornell.edu... [8]: http://www.theguardian.com... [9]: http://www.theguardian.com... [10]: http://www.salon.com... [11]: http://www.salon.com... [12]: http://www.statisticbrain.com...