I personally think this part of the second amendment is outdated.

The check on violent government overreach are the moral compasses of individual soldiers, peaceful protests and a free media. If we get past all of these things, no "well regulated Militia" is going to stop the U.S. Army. The best chance would be state national guards. My point here is that fully automatic fire, tanks, artillery and air support make any resistance useless. Perhaps a guerrilla war could be fought, but to someone seeking complete control fighting guerrillas is an annoyance, not an obstacle.

This is mostly because the FDA tightly restricts ownership of 'destructive devices', which are the weapons needed to fight an effective war.

Just this week I saw footage of police murdering an unarmed man in Baton Rouge. Had that person actually been armed, maybe he could have defended himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/3...

Had that man been armed, they wouldn’t have even bothered with an investigation after shooting him. Hey, he was armed, waved a gun at a cop, must have been a bad guy.

Likewise, given an active shooter at a school and armed teachers, how do police tell the difference between the perpetrator and the armed teachers defending the kids? Ya, they don’t.

Adding more guns to a situations where police are using guns unjustly is not going to end well.

Do they really curb the power though?

What is one reasonable scenario of a thing the government may want to do, that we could stop because we have a firearm.

I have a gun, and I don't think the government really has a right to tax me for an unjust undeclared war. If I don't pay my taxes, I don't think the United States military or law enforcement cares that I may be armed.

I think the police would be even more aggressive if they knew citizens were unarmed.

I think the police are more aggresssive because they know any citizen can be armed

When there’s a power imbalance, it’s sadly human nature to exploit it and become aggressive. For instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

There are so many guns, police have to assume everyone is armed in dangerous. So accidental shootings by police of innocent civilians is significant and, unfortunately in our society, seen as mostly unavoidable.

This is completely unrelated to the Stanford experiment.

Whenever I hear that brought up as an argument, I recommend listening to what Jim Jefferies had to say about gun control. Despite Jim Jefferies being a comedian and phrasing his arguments in a comical, comedic way, I've yet to see anyone give a convincing counter-argument, especially to the "you're bringing a gun to a drone fight" part.

Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Jim Jefferies on Gun Control, part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

This argument is absurd. Most of the time, Americans can't organize enough to start a union, or even join one. The idea of Americans organizing an insurgency is ridiculous. The idea of Americans winning an insurgency, against the largest army in the world - an army that has more counter-insurgency experience than anybody except perhaps the IDF, is still more ridiculous. Guns will never check anything because the only thing that checks power is another powerful organization - a protest movement, or a union. Guns are what happen when a protest movement fails, and if you're relying on civilian-grade stuff at this point, your protest movement is screwed anyway.

This argument is absurd. Any "reasonable, intelligent person" who's read basically any history book ever written would know that the United States would not descend into civil war with its military intact.

I guess Iraq and Vietnam didn't get the message on this.

"Defeating" the military isn't the goal, in the same way that the goal of Iraqi and Vietnam insurgents was not the goal.

The goal is to make the conflict so expensive and costly that they decide not to continue it.

For example, imagine if those hundreds of thousands of uninvolved civilians that died in Iraq were instead innocent Americans caught in the crossfire of a war.

This would be an extremely high cost to the ruling government.

Yes, even if the government is "evil", because real life entities are not comic book villains.

They are rational entities with rational motivation. And presumably one of those motivations of any government, even an evil one, is to not rule over a desolate wasteland of ashes.

Or in other words, sure the government could launch hundreds of nukes and kill all of its enemies. But it would do that, because the government is not a literal doomsday cult.

The point of an armed citizenry is to act as a DETERRENCE. It is to increase the costs to the government by saying "yes, you can win this... But only by killing millions, and since you are not a doomsday cult, this is a high cost".

It is a deterrence in order to stop the government from becoming an evil dictatorship in the first place, kinda like have a nuke pointed at your own country.

Guessing you've never been to Idaho

There’s more to the government than the army. Go talk to some people from an ethnic group over represented in prison and ask them if the idea of police being armed while citizens are forcibly unarmed sits well...