So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol
The 2A is really simple it reads...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The whole point is that Americans have the capacity to resist invaders and if the government decided to impose its will on the people (tyranny) the people are constitutionally protected if they resist. The power remains with the people, not the government.
It's hard to say whether it's an effective form of maintaining democracy but both China and North Korea ban firearms from private citizens. It's certainly an effective form of maintaining power.
Edited by ChrisJones, 02 October 2017 - 05:37 pm.