And protect your property.
And protect your family.
And possibly even protect your neighborhood.
There are plenty of more practical reasons before the whole fight tyranny reason arises. All of which are still relevant.
We have had elections during and running up to the Civil War and WWII, we'll be fine.
Hunting does not require automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. Neither does protecting your property or even your family. And protecting your neighborhood? From who? From what? Do we live in a universe where we have "The Purge"? Did that law pass at some point? I mean honestly, do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? I once went to Georgia to visit family and while I was down there, I was at my cousins' house and opened his closet and he had handguns, shotguns and even grenades. I asked him what he needed that for. He shrugged and said, just in case. In case what? Trust me, if you knew my cousin, you would not be comfortable with the idea that he has grenades. It's insane.
Open carry is an entirely different issue that is usually pushed by gun nuts. That's more about the scope of gun ownership and if it can tread into public spaces. Bloomberg just hates guns in general when they're not on cops or his ex-special ops bodyguards. If your issue is with OC, we are talking two different things.
Gun-related death and violence has fallen considerably over the last two decades, don't buy the hype unless you live in the South Side of Chicago.
Crime and violence in America will possibly always be abnormally high compared to the rest of the advanced world though for the foreseeable future, don't expect us to become Finland ever. I don't see how any of this impacts our greatness, the freedom to own guns is valiant. Free and open societies come with a basic level of risk attached in terms of citizen violence, the greater the freedom, then the relevant risks rise accordingly. But I agree that attacks by gun nuts on reasonable restrictions is lunacy and just as bad as the clueless, anti-gun nutjobs with no respect for the constitution. A balan/ce must be struck, is that what you mean?
Actually, my issue is with private (untrained) citizens being allowed to purchase and store automatic, semi-automatic weapons and explosive ordinance. My issue is with the fact that we live in a country where a 17 yr old can't by beer, can't smoke weed, can't join the military or police force, but can go to gun show (without adult supervision) purchase an automatic rifle, ammo and leave no questions asked. And if that kid were to then use said weapon to kill people in school or at a movie theater, night club or church, gun nuts want to focus the person and not the system that allows such a person to get his hands on the guns.
You talk about free and open societies coming with a certain level of risk of violence. Of course. But guess what? China is a free society. Japan too. Germany, France, Australia, Italy, Belgium, England, South Africa, Canada and yes, even Finland. All of these countries enjoy the same freedoms we do. Hell, some have more freedom as we still struggle to determine who can use what bathroom and we have a candidate who wants to build a fucking wall.
None of them allow their citizens to carry guns with as little restriction as us (if at all) and yet somehow, miraculously, their societies thrive, their citizens are still safe and they have less violence and less people in prison than we do by a wide margin. If the 2nd amendment exists to protect us from the invisible boogie man, then where was the armed militia of heroes during 9/11 or the nightclub shooting in Florida or Columbine or any other fucking gun related massacre that's happened on US soil in the past 30 years. The 2nd amendment is a relic from a by gone era when white Americans needed to protect themselves from Europeans or the Indians who wanted their land back from the people who decided they could take it because they had...surprise...guns. We haven't actually needed our citizens to be armed since the 30s.
I was in the military, and by the standards of our country I required months of training to know how to properly use, store and maintain any weapon they gave me. In that same country, a teenager can walk into a gun show, or go online and purchase an even more powerful weapon and we don't ask them to be trained, licensed or even be sane. We ask no questions. Hell, there are people on no fly lists because we consider them to be possible criminals or terrorists, yet those same people can purchase a weapon legally in our country. And when pressed, gun lobbyists and apologists will just yell, second amendment! because they lack any real intellectual or cogent argument against stricter laws and fact remains that for manufactures it about money and for the apologists it's about the "Gu'ment tellin me what ta do!!"
At the very least, I think our laws should be like Canada's. They require 60 days to wait, thorough psychological and criminal background checks and no open carry laws and no online/gun show loopholes. You also can't purchase automatic or semi-automatic weapons either.
BTW, I also have an issue with the fact that the second amendment is really a white man's law. But that's an issue I just won't go into detail further.
Edited by RamenRenegade, 23 October 2016 - 04:58 PM.