[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

considering that no first world countries with strict gun control have had any issues with dictatorial uprisings in modern history don't you think it's also a factor that can be obviously and immediately dismissed?

On the contrary, it's not even unusual for first-world countries to have governments usurp power. It simply takes a different form than it has in the past, and so long as the economy isn't in the tank people are generally far too greedy to oppose it. That is of course an entirely different issue, but this idea of governmental tyranny being a thing of the past just ain't so.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

the gun ownership ratio is so skewed along political lines in America that effectively one political side of America is armed and the other is not...how does that figure into the threat on democracy? Tyranny seems just as likely to spring out of that environment than be held back by it, to my eyes.

This is literally one of the most exceptionally weak arguments I have ever read, for anything. One group of people exercising their rights more than another chooses to doesn't carry with it any threat of tyranny. That's like saying people who don't vote are being disenfranchised; no, they just chose not to vote.

Originally Posted by AlexB

Do you not think that this even being a consideration in any nation, let alone one that is otherwise considered one of the leading nations in the world, is indicative that there might just be a problem, and something needs to change?

Of course. But exactly what the problem is, is another matter. America has always had lots of guns without this type of thing being prevalent. Ergo, guns aren't the problem. Similarly, our approach to mental health is still inadequate but not nearly as inadequate as it was in the past when you didn't see randomish mass shootings of this regularity. So something else has changed. Cultural factors require cultural solutions.

Originally Posted by whomario

same old "if you can't eliminate it 100%, why bother" nonsense that gets floated eventually every time in this debate.

I didn't read it that way at all. Certainly 100% can never be the goal. But there's opposing any non-perfect solution on the one hand, and on the other there is not being in favor of doing 'just anything' just to do something regardless of how likely it is to make a real difference. Which leads back to the point that if you want to reduce gun violence by eliminating weapons, you need to ban them all since handguns are most often used to kill people.

Originally Posted by whomario

When i then see an organization suing a regional government for setting the minimum age for the purchase of a military-grade piece of weaponry at the same number as the legal drinking limit, i gotta ask: What in the hell is wrong over there ?

I don't carry water for the NRA but this is just basic logic. Why should adults aged 18-21 not have the same rights as other adults? At 18 you can vote and go to war for your country, but you can't buy a gun(or drink)? Makes a lot more sense to have a single point at which a person comes of age, at which point you should be able to do all of those things.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I read an piece from a historian who put the 2A into historical context. A standing national army was not a thing, and what was there, wasn't strong enough to defend the entire newly founded country of the USA. Therefore there was a need for a strong reliance on localized militias who could be formed up on notice and provide a mechanism for the defense of the country.

I'd refer this historian to the history of what the founders actually wrote. Namely, that the miltia was considered to be the entirety of the people(you literally can't find a contemporary with any other definition of the term), the concept of governmental regulation as we know it today was not even a thing and would not be for quite some time('organized' is a better sense of what they referred to). And then there are the statements like this one from the Federalist Papers:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton

if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .

Note that he does not here envision the citizenry as a replacemente for the army, but rather a counterbalance to it in defense of the people's liberties.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

living your life in constant preparation for the impending apocalypse hardly sounds like the standard for the American Dream.

I'd describe what you refer to here as merely taking prudent precautions and not assuming the future will be rosy. A wise man sees danger and seeks refuge, and all that. It's only necessary to live extremely little of one's life preparing for such things to do what has been described.