While I support the sentiment behind what you said, gun ownership by private individuals does not guarantee freedom from a ruthless government. The BATF, for example, reduced the heavily armed Branched Davidians to ashes within a few hours.A guerilla revolution by armed militias and their supporters against a renegade U.S. gov't would only lead to the mass misery we see in other coutries, like Columbia. The best offense against a renegade gov't would be nonviolent civil disobedience.
Anyway, we're not faced with a murderous gov't right now (no comments from the peanut gallery, please), but we are faced with a heavily armed populace which murders many innocent people. I can live without that kind of freedom.
: : But as you well know, that's only part of it. The entire Amendment reads: "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."
: : Pity it's such a poorly written amendment, but you can't divorce the first half from the second. This amendment says that you may have arms in conjunction with being a well regulated militia. It does not say that you can amass weapons in your basement as a solo agent.
: Cynic: Then what of the belief held by many of the Founding Fathers (revolutionaries all) that governments were inherent evils? From this it would seem to follow that the arming of the populace is strictly intended to provide security for the people from the tyranny of corrupt rule. Who is to say that avid watchers of government that take up weapons and prepare for revolution aren't regulating themselves?
:
: : Furthermore, while it's true we can't get rid of all guns, we can get rid of the vast majority of them, and that way the United States can stop being the leader of the industrialized world in gun deaths.
: Cynic: I believe it was the versatile B. Franklin who said it... but it was something to effect of "People willing to trade liberty (gun ownership) for a little security (reduced threat of gun violence) deserve neither."
: If only the police and the military are allowed to have access to weapons, then by default, who gets shot by whom? And if the people have no ability to oust an out-of-control government by force, what recourse do they really have to being enslaved, exploited, or otherwise?
: Don't get me wrong- I hate firearms. I think that in our present state it is unnecessary for anyone outside of serving police or military functions to own a gun. But there are those who wouldn't agree... some of those anti-government militias up in Montana, for example, would think me blind. But I can imagine a future without guns available to the populace, and I see the government's accountability to the people beginning to erode with it. That scares me... about equally as much as the threat of random violence.
: Yes, guns be damned... but freedom be exalted, and if our choice is both or nothing, I must grudgingly give my consent to the former.
:
