The American 2nd Amendment is an outdated piece of sh**

General RebuttalIf not for the defence of liberty, what is the utility of the 2ndamendment?To repeat your aspersions -* To die a noble death in a gunfight* If not for victory, annoy the military * Keep guns handy to scare your politicians * Nuisance to invaders* Self-defence in situations (long range) when fleeing offers the best chance of survival* SportsHardly a noble utility for a major constitutional amendment!!!As John Locke puts it, "For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others".But where is Liberty if your neighbour is granted the tool to cause the greatest amount of fear and violence? Is this so that some can enjoy the benefits you spouse? Are the use of guns absolute, and like the Absolute Right to Free Speech granted by theConstitution, be made immune to the progress of time? Technologies even the flush toilet become victims to obsolescence, and I will continue toshow the same is true for guns in the 2nd amendment Guns do not protect Liberty. They ran counter to the resolution of modern conflicts. "For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others" The 1st amendment remains the most potent tool against tyranny and violence from thegovernment. At the same time, we live in the age where information, opinion and ideas (internet)are easily accessible to the fingertips (hand phone) of the every individual. And since people form the backbone of the government and military, they have equal accessto the same opinions and ideas are not deaf to the voice of the public. The on-going conflict in Egypt shows how the military instead of becoming tools ofoppression come to the aid of the citizens it vowed to protect. This is notpossible if not for the power of persuasion and how thru the internet, voice ofreason echoed throughout the ranks of the military. If Egyptian citizens fired the first shot, it would have rang louder than reasonand invite the military to invoke the collective right to defend the state, andthe overwhelming force that comes with it. It is people power that leads to the ouster of modern day tyrants Gandhi may have been relegated to a death camp but thru restraint and conviction, he dismantledan empire that capitalized on persecution, discrimination and intolerance. This is nobler than a aiming for senseless death thru violence. India at the hands of the British didn’t have a 1st amendment, and this is ata time without Internet. I think this answers your hypothetical scenario. Modern Military 101, Oppression, Tyrannical State and Restricting the Power of Government Guns at the hands of a disorganized public that has no chain of command is definitely scary. This only invites the governments to respond with determination and defend itself and therest of the population. It provides some legitimacy to the actions of the military in response to this threat. Guns are simply counter-productive to the goal of inviting a powerful democratic governmentto change. Far from immediately resolving conflict, use of guns willsimply prolong the conflict. Balance of power, whistleblowing, civil-disobedience, and transparency. These, and notguns, are the real weapons that actualize progress. If Edward Snowden held US authorities at gun point, it will run counter to authenticityof his aspirations to limit the power of the government. Provide additional security to the state Armed citizens will unnecessarily put themselves in danger in the face of modern warfare andterrorism. Far from being help, they will just be in the way and limit how the US military respondto the threats of IEDs, bio-chemical warfare, nuclear and attack. If your hypothetical invading force is willing to attack innocent civilians, they will not hesitateto use bunker busters, drones and chemicals to wipe out suburbia. Cooperation, Evacuation, Logistics and Technical Assistance. These are areas that ordinary citizenscan help. Self-defence If we are hypothesizing about long range situations, standing-your-ground does not applyuniversally across all states. In many States, fleeing is the only legal discourse. In these states, shooting someone at longrange is considered an assault and not self-defence. Also, this would require someone proficient at marksmanship. Electric-shock weapons already work at reasonable ranges that can successfully thwart mostthreats. Hunting You don't need a major constitutional provision for a sport, the same way you don't need a major constitutional provision for MMA or football. A simple legal proviso can pave way for use of guns within hunting grounds the same way that simple legal provisos are used to waive liability in sports that cause pain and hurt, that would have otherwise been categorized as assault outside of the sport. Guns for recreation (within gun ranges and hunting grounds) are not prohibited in most countries outside of America and they didn’t have to resort to the constitution to allow it.