The Second Amendment is important because it safeguards citizens’ rights to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to ‘guard against’ tyranny – that’s the role of the First Amendment.
You may as well go ahead and turn them in now and bow to a future dear leader, then.
Logistics is that thing that revolutionaries never have.
I've often wondered about myself, when do I take out the shooting iron? When civil police take away the guy down the street, or when swat or military come for me? Will I withhold my fire for reasons of safety for family or neighbors, or will I just put on my Friday night best and go to town?
It's not clear to me, I doubt that others are so certain. Do I wait for orders from the nra or the governor, or who will define the line? I guess that every individual will be either the lone wolf, the rogue psychopath, or he will wait until he is absolutely certain that he has to resist.
What will I do? What will my neighbor do? (He will rat me out for a pack of hotdogs)
Ask yourself, work on that answer, decide what you will do.
Then ask yourself what you will do in case of riots or looters? (In my hometown, when a tornado ripped a quarter of the city into shreds, we had people picking the pockets of corpses and looters were at the pharmacies before the police even got there. But not a single looter was shot?
Of UPMOST importance to consider, you assume that the entire armed arm of the government will flex in lock-step to disarm the public and enforce a type of America that has never existed. This is very flawed logic.
Many members of the military believe in a strong 2nd Amendment and are firearms enthusiasts. In fact, if you speak with ALMOST ANYONE in combat arms, they will tell you that they would resist a government that tried to abolish the 2nd amendment. Law Enforcement? Same conundrum. Sure, many urban PDs would happily conduct raids to eradicate private firearm ownership, but don't tell that to the local boys.
In this fantastical envisioned future that we all should pray never does arrive, it won't be red dawn colonies of civilians facing against the entire united US Military. No, you will see Military units defect, taking their hardware with them. National Guard? Same. Law Enforcement Agencies? Same. Private Citizens? Same. That's what made the 2nd Amendment effective. It is, to date at least, a culture within the US. Many of our warfighters would quickly reject the notion that they are to be used to disarm the civilian population. If you doubt this, look at the names, logos, and ethos of many of the newly formed veteran companies (Black Rifle Coffee Company, anyone? Grunt Style?). It would be very difficult to argue that they are anti-2A.
This is the beauty of the 2nd Amendment. For the time-being, it is ingrained enough that we need not fear becoming like Iran, nor should we fear it's outright overnight repeal. Our elected officials basically know better. Our government knows the limit, and the thing we should fear the most is a slow erosion of our rights over time and not an executive order banning all firearms tomorrow. And we should celebrate the fact that we aren't Iran. I believe this was the point Glenn was trying to make.
And to counter the original argument about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you go read Federalist no. 46. It describes in detail both the argument for capping the size of a standing federal army, and arming the civilian populace to fight it. Certainly fighting a standard army in those days is a good deal simpler than what it would be today... but there was a time when a few backwoods Iraqi's were giving American forces a fit.
