Having guns does little to hold government in chech. A well educated, well informed, and politically active populace on the other hand is a strait jacket. Which is why free assembly and free speech are so important.
Look at what happens to every group of well-educated, well-informed, politically active people when they go up against an authority. Look at the Prague Spring (speaking of holding the government in Czech), at Occupy Oakland, and what's happened in Turkey most recently. Free speech and free assembly merely mean that you can call the jackbooted thugs names as they crack open the heads of you and your friends.
Further, consider that the trends in education, mass media, and overall American culture have very nearly destroyed the ability to field a group of people meeting any of the three criteria for your 'strait jacket'. We've done such a bangup job of driving social networks and short action-reward loops in our advertising and communication that we have a populace with such a low attention span that it's hard to stay angry long enough to cause trouble.
On the other hand, the 2nd amendment speaks for itself. At the risk of being particularly cynical, I imagine that it is far, far easier to find a hundred thugs who can be talked into taking potshots at the Man than it is to find one who can carefully and consistently explain why the government is doing wrong, what the exact nature of the wrong is, and how to fix it.
We cherish the 2nd precisely because, at the end of the day, you get a lot further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
If you don't believe me, ask the men in Washington.
What? It's easier to find inbred retards who want to shoot at "the Man" than actually maintaining an educated populace, so therefore we "cherish" the 2a?
No, parent was saying that it easier for an educated subset of the populace to shoot at the Man than to educate her "inbred, retard" (to use your phrase) peers.
I am suggesting that while the 1st and 4th amendments are very important, they alone are insufficient against jackbooted thugs; moreover, they appeal and are useful only to the relative intellectual elite of a country--if them.
The 2nd amendment, by contrast, expands the availability of force to the common man, and in so doing allows even the dullest and slowest hooligan to contribute to the process of political reform. Indeed, should the Man come calling, I would rather have a dozen armed rednecks and coon-asses standing with me than a few score of the best-spoken orators of our time.
It's unfortunate that things seem to be suggesting that this sort of calculus is becoming reasonable again.
I agree a well educated and informed society is the best deterrent to keeping governments serving the best interest of the people. Yet recent events have shown that we are not that well informed by our media and government on purpose.
Guns are not a deterrent in as much as a means to allow the people to defend themselves against an abusive government when and if needed.
When you say 'the people,' which people do you mean? Because it doesn't serve everyone's interests to threaten civil war in the US - only certain people's interests. These people don't represent all people, listen to what they say closely, but are rather prioritizing their own interests so far above others that they maintain a right to threaten and kill people they disagree with.
>These people don't represent all people, listen to what they say closely, but are rather prioritizing their own interests so far above others that they maintain a right to threaten and kill people they disagree with.
