WMDs aside, only MAD protects against them, and that is a no win scenario.
The Supreme Court has upheld that the 2nd Amendment does apply to personal ownership outside of any "militia".
So the Amendment can be amended (to exclude personal ownership as it was to include it)? You have a military. You don't need a crowd of gun happy loonies with delusions of freedom, running around shooting defenceless schoolchildren in order to gain attention. Save your tax dollar and your children.
Not all arms are purchased with the intent of a militia use, either. There are many wild critters in some areas that we need to protect ourselves from. Personally, the only reason I purchased an "assault weapon" was for hunting, due to several medical problems, the ergonomics and weight make it more practical and easier to handle.
No different than other countries. UK people live rurally also. The people with a legitimate use, may own an appropriate weapon as it requires to be licensed and secured. These people may not leave automatic or semi weapons lying about for difficult teenagers to use against family members, neighbours and innocent children.
The fact that it can be used to hold off thieves and other less desirable persons intent on criminal mischief is only a bonus. If I was poor living in less desirable neighborhoods in a city, it would be very practical for defense also, gangers rarely, if ever come alone. Guns exist, they have always existed here and will continue to do so for a longtime into our future, they are not going away. So we can either find a way to deal with that fact in practical and doable ways or we can continue down the same path we are currently on.
:dohDo you think potential crime and teenagers don't exist in other countries? This is just laziness. Resolve the social issues. If you stop double payment of gun ownership and military, you may be able to fund an effective Police force to do what it should be doing for you.
As much as some are wanting to cut military spending and focus upon social spending, I for one, am not willing to bet that in a decade or so, a major portion of our defense will not be upon us private owners of arms. Even if they are never used as a militia weapon, the very thought of more than a 100 million armed civilians who can become guerrilla fighters is enough to give any sane person thinking of invading us nightmares and deters them from think seriously about it.
No one is seriously thinking about it and the only people who have attempted it in recent years were not deterred by that, but are prevented by your protective security services.
There is no excuse for it other than an immature wish to play with guns. The culture needs to grow up.
The point is a final guard against tyranny, even from your own government. Its ALWAYS been the point.
The point of it was to arm Protestants, when Catholics were already armed. That didn't relate to your government, it related to James 2nd.
However, if you are still afraid the UK (your ex-Government) will storm the Whitehouse and make you all take afternoon tea on a daily basis, hold onto your personal arms.
What makes you think the military will be as loyal to an idea if you begin removing the foundations of the idea? The more beholden to government you become the less resistance you have to government working its will on others. Both of these ideas would be at work---we already have expanding government and if you were to begin to remove the ability of the populace to defend itself you would be left with unchecked government that would incrementally just take more and more rights away "for the greater good".
....and that's what happens in Europe and all the other Westernised countries where people have no interest whatsoever in guns.
Not.
The people don't need guns to motivate politicians. The people wield power just by existing and a Government set up to be accountable is all you require. Of course despite the politically correct smoke screens, your political system isn't exactly accountable to the people, more the people with money.
Peaceful assembly? Cant be peaceful so you cant do it.
Freedom of speech? You are causing unrest that will cause others to break the law so you must be stopped.
Freedom of the press? They are fomenting unrest so they must be controlled.
Freedom of religion? Your religion is harmful to another, you must be fined until you quit.
Etc etc, you can justify anything in the name of safety, but it doesn't make you any more free. Freedom isnt taken away all at once, its taken away one small piece at a time.
I see the gun lobby trying to take it away from Piers Morgan, whilst not appearing overly concerned by the public threat your current gun law plainly constitutes against the people.
Ex-President Gorbachev once stated that the only reason they didn't invade the US was because the populace was armed. And that is with in the past 30 years. How many other countries have not invaded due to our populace being armed but haven't openly admitted it?
But that is only ONE reason for our populace to remain armed. Another is to protect ourselves from our government becoming a tyrannical government.
No one can even remember Gorbie. He's history and no one was ever afraid of him to begin with, the most West-friendly President ever. However, the US has the strongest military force in the world. Why would it fear attack from the gang that can't shoot straight? And what makes you think the peasants revolting is more intimidating than the strongest military force in the world?
No logic whatsoever in any of that.