I love how people just assume that the Second Amendment means you'd even have a remote chance of winning in an "Uprising against Tyrannical Government!"

The Second Amendment was put in place so that if the American government ever became tyrannical, the American people could defend themselves against the tyrannical government. Is the government right now tyrannical? No it is not, nor has it ever been, but there is still always that possibility that it could. Now with that aside, now a days the Second Amendment usually is taken as a self defense measure against criminals. Which you know what? That's a good thing. Why would I [i]not[/i] want to defend myself? Now would I resort to using a gun at first sight of a criminal? Absolutely not, it should be used in a last ditch effort. Now I do realize that with all of the openness that we Americans have with guns, there's always the potential that some person who isn't right in the head may buy a gun. Ya know what? This has happened, [b]and this is a huge situation[/b]. People who aren't right in the head should not own guns, but how can you tell if somebody's not right in the head before you (a gun seller) sells a gun to that person? You don't know, and that's a problem as well. Before people buy a gun, it should be mandatory to get some sort of mental test to see if you're mentally stable enough to buy a gun (and most people are, but this is for the few people who are not). Honestly doing this will cut back crazy people getting guns and then causing mass shootings. This way the people who like guns for self defense can keep them for self defense, and those who like their guns for hunting can keep their guns for hunting. And those who don't want a gun? Just don't buy a gun then. Personally I wouldn't want my last ditch weapon to be a knife or something like that. So for all of you who don't like guns or don't want to own one, have fun defending yourself with that knife of yours.

Whenever I see a post like this, my mind always goes back to this article. Why? Because it's just as insane.

Let me guess, you also suggest we storm the white house and try to reenact the War of 1812? Not like America has a full military that's been trained to kill with more advanced technology than the average citizen to respond to a threat to the government like that, right?

Right to bear [u]arms [/u] doesn't have to mean guns.

OP, this site is full of Left Wing radicals that wish they could just amend the Constitution with their single vote to allow them to throw in jail anyone that hurts their feelings or challenges their belief. They have complete disregard for The Constitution unless they need to go crying to it because of "Muh Feelings!" for some form or another. The liberals of B.net only care about The Constitution when it benefits them.

Has the government nuked any cities yet?

Arguing that the Constitution should be upheld doesn't bode well on this site.

The second amendment is irrelevant in today's society. There is no way a few citizens are going to beat the US military even if they do have guns.

[quote]The arguments that hunters don't need automatic or semi-automatic rifles are irrevelant. [/quote] How so? [quote]Also criminals aren't going to follow laws[/quote] So why have any?

We have the right to have bear arms? That's awesome!

[quote]Also criminals aren't going to follow laws and they will always find illegal guns. Restricting law abiding citizens from certain firearms won't change that. [/quote] Because the everyday thugs in Oakland have access to fully automatic machine guns and RPGs.

Aren't there like 4713 other threads about this.

I have a few questions about the "tyrannical government" argument. I've never quite understood it, so bear (ha!) with me. 1) What defines a "tyrannical government?" (I'm assuming it means one that has a blatant disregard for the Constitution and attacks its own people [ie Morsi's gov't], so correct me if I'm wrong) 2) The US military has many, many weapons at its disposal. If the government were serious about taking over, it would use those against their own people, who would be relatively defenseless in comparison. As in, what could assault rifles possibly do to an Abrams or an unmanned drone? 3) Even if the government wanted to take over, how would it have enough people to agree to such a thing? I'm certain most, if not all of the people serving in the government (including the military), believe in the country's values, and would object to abuses of power, because why else would they have taken their jobs in the first place? Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning come to mind. I guess what I'm saying is, how would a "tyrannical government" even be possible?

[quote]Also criminals aren't going to follow laws[/quote]Yeah, we don't need speed limits.

I don't even disagree with you, but regurgitating basic premises like this is completely pointless and proves nothing.