As I see it, you make two key points: (1) the second amendment preserves the ability to have an armed insurrection in case the government “turns bad” and needs it, and (2) having a gun allows you to feel more able to protect yourself and your family.

The first of these is a actually quite a good argument. I’m fairly sure that the founding fathers had it in mind when they wrote this amendment; after all, they had just engaged in such an armed insurrection. I wonder whether our society has changed enough that this is no longer applicable? Today, a well-armed populace is no defense against a competent modern military (Iraq serves as an example). And perhaps our society has advanced some as well — the idea of a regular, peaceful transition of power based on democratic elections is a new one (introduced, to a significant extent, by the American constitution), but it is an idea that has taken hold to the core of our society. When the Supreme Court “overthrew” an election with the Bush v. Gore decision not to re-count the votes (that’s how some on the left saw it) there was not a single case of armed insurrection anywhere in the country.

The second argument is, I think, less strong. First, I would like to convince you that it is a matter of degrees, not an absolute. I doubt you would defend the right of every citizen to own their own cruise missile or chemical weapons delivery system: clearly there is some level of weapon so drastic that it should be restricted from the populace. Also, if there were some odd sort of brain affliction causing some people to pick up handguns and go on mad killing sprees, and it was killing hundreds of people a day, then you might consider restricting guns simply to save lives!

I think most people would agree with the extreme cases I gave in the previous paragraph. If so, then the real debate is simply over this: should handguns be considered so dangerous that they must be banned? In some parts of the country (like the inner city of Philadelphia, near where I live) there ARE hundreds of murders: more than one per day. In those parts of the country, many people favor greater restrictions on guns. In other parts of the country this behavior is not epidemic; in more rural areas people tend to worry that restrictions on handguns are the first step to banning guns (and hunting) entirely.

I am not arguing to overturn the second amendment, my only point here is that there ARE reasonable arguments on both sides. Have a great Thanksgiving!

It’s not about “me” defending myself against the government, it’s about “us” collectively defending ourselves from a bad government. If tyrants were to try to take over the country, the people collectively could impose their own will to keep control over our great nation. We have the right to keep and bear arms as one measure to help prevent such a scenario. Taking away guns from the people would just be one less barrier to taking control of the entire country.

I have no idea how the 2nd amendment even pertains to drugs. Drugs should be controlled as best we can. They ruin people’s lives and breed criminal activity in the process. That type of environment(a “crack den” if you will) doesn’t belong anywhere and certainly not next door to my family. That’s not imposing my beliefs, that is protecting my family’s safety. Once again, something I’m very much concerned about.

And how can you defend yourself against your government? They have nukes and cluster munitions (and won’t sign up to international accords to ban them) You’re not allowed have those my friend otherwise they’d call you a terrorist and throw you in jail.

And hey let’s put strict controls on crack cocaine and methamphetamine cos then obviously no one will ever die from them.

As for not imposing your beliefs on others. Is it OK for me to move in next door to you and open up a crack den? I’m guessing it’s fine cos you’re a ‘live and let live’ type of guy.