[Raellus]

I understand the purpose of the Second Ammendment. It's not such a bad idea, on the face of it. In its proper historical context, it makes a ton of sense. Today, though? I'm not so sure.

I've read pro-gun arguments that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if interwar Germany had had its own version of the Second Ammendment. We'll never know. All I know is that any time some fringe citizen or domestic militia (or cult) group starts getting a little uppity in today's America, the government comes down on them like a ton of bricks (Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.). No personal arsenal of small arms has proven potent enough to stop The Man, so I'm not sure this whole "we need guns to protect all of our other liberties" argument really holds much water. To go back to the context of the orginal Second Ammendment, King George III's British army didn't have M1A1s or Apache gunships. In the late 18th century, a muzzle-loading musket was the great equalizer. Sorry, but hi-cap, semi-auto rifles are no longer insurance against tyranny.

What's more likely, a foreign invasion of the United States, the implementation of martial law here, or another theater/mall/workplace/school shooting? No freedom isn't free, but does a heavily armed populace really make us free either?