absolute right to bear arms?, page-10

So first things first - if you agree this is not what TJ had in mind, than there is a massive problem with the second amendment - it is broken, on the basis that people are claiming second amendment and their right to own guns, but in reality, it is likely more for self defence against other individuals (for most people), than for self defence against a tyrannical govt.

In fact, I am willing to bet that if there was an opinion poll as to the main reason most people (in the US) own guns, defence against a tyrannical govt is not going to be the main reason.

The above opens up what is a massive legal can of worms for the US...hence the second amendment (right to bear arms against a tyrannical govt) is always what is argued.

We need to get the above out of the way before separately arguing the right to self defence against another individual who is armed, which opens up a whole separate can of worms.

In what is supposed to be a civil society, people are not supposed to be threatening others, especially with weapons, such as guns. We have already discussed the definition of a weapon and we know a gun is indeed classified as one. The police and the law are supposed to protect us from attacks by others. This is what is supposed to make us as humans, different from animals. Now obviously, there is no perfect world, even with "the law" in place, but allowing people to arm themselves as discussed, simply creates a never ending spiral towards anarchy.