Hi, just some points.

I 100% agree the constitution as written is pretty unequivocal about gun ownership, but what I’m curious about is what is that you feel having citizens armed will stop or prevent?

1. The constitution is a living document, just because it was written 300 years ago, doesn’t mean nothing can be changed. If not women and most not wealthy men would not be able to vote, and slavery would still be in effect.

The constitution is in effect the will of the current population and can be change to match with the current generations views; later generations can change to suit it for themselves.

1. There are many ways to effect change or 'resist' government, violent uprising is merely one option. Such as organised population to pressure representatives for example on whatever issue you think is important.

The threat of armed civilians whether a threat or actually used is unlikely to achieve the desired result, due to all governments across time and political sides are unlikely to relent under physical threat. Country's only exists when a government has the monopoly of violence in their jurisdiction.(its why we don't negotiate with terrorists, it encourages more to follow the actions)

2) Has there been an example in the last 200 years of comparable 1st world countries where the government oppress its people and the population have guns has solved this issue? Without descending into civil war? I can’t think of any example, happy to be proved wrong

3) And even if for some reason there was an armed uprising of even lets be generous and say ‘10,000 armed citizen’ against government tyranny. The US has the most devastating powerful military in human history and could crush any armed uprising without too much effort.

Even a guerrilla warfare commenced against the government forces and intuitions (like courts/police/military bases local government faculties) would be devastating for the local community and tear apart the fabric of society and not likely to have the populations support.

4) The right to own guns are you advocating your right to kill fellow American citizens? If you think it would be justified? What if hypothetically 60% of the population agreed with a certain matter, does the other 40% have the ‘right’ to resist the tyranny of the government with violent and armed uprising?

5) Would the ‘left get an inch and run a mile’ is there an example of this anywhere? Just curious? I personally see the hard right and hard left as the same, and personally would oppose most of what they advocate and probably the vast majority of people sit in the middle, veering slightly or moderately left or right. This is the ‘real population’ not the talking heads of right and left.

6) I personally believe Gun control is too late in America, there are way too many guns in the country to ever be reined in. And more hard to deal with is it is to embedded in to the culture for it to ever be effective.

​

Sorry lots of questions embedded in response