The 2nd Amendment to the constitution is for fighting government. That is it’s purpose and that is the only answer as to why people should not be denied their right to bear arms. Fighting government is a worst case scenario, so any other reasoning would be superfluous and less justifiable. I will type another article about worst case scenarios because here I just want to talk about how it is in place for fighting government.
Guarding against the random or not so random individual that seeks to violently assault you is not the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is superfluous and a weak reason to use when defending your right to keep and bear arms. Same with saying guns are for crime control. There are statistics that can be used to advocate for the right to bear arms as far as reduction in crime, however the actual purpose of the 2nd amendment was not for the everyday criminal. It is there for the big criminals, the government.
When I speak of government, I mean all governments. I am not just talking about the U.S. government, I am also taking about governments like those of China, Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, India, United Kingdom, Iceland, France, Japan, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. State, county, and even local governments are all included!
You see, the anti-gun idiots continually destroy their own arguments. They have conceded that to actually have gun control, it is necessary to repeal the 2nd amendment. However, they try to lay the militia argument on the table. Now, regardless of what these anti-gun idiots will tell you, they do actually want to repeal the 2nd amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. However, they also blow up the militia argument that they like to give. They try to argue that the militia is the military like the national guard or marines and that means only people in the military are allowed to have firearms.
The problem with arguing that the 2nd only allows arms in the military is that when they argue to repeal the 2nd amendment, then by their logic the military would no longer be allowed arms.
Now that would be silly, because that would also mean that the 2nd is necessary for having a military. However, we can look at the constitution to know the complete absurdity to the militia argument as far as arming the military.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States allows congress to provide a navy and organize and call forth militias. The 2nd amendment is not necessary for having an armed military. The founders didn’t write up the constitution and then start the bill of rights and just happen to notice they forgot to allow the military to be armed!