That has not been debunked - I'd say the jury is still out, at best. Many of the studies that supposedly debunk this claim have issues like including suicides,

That has not been debunked - I'd say the jury is still out, at best. Many of the studies that supposedly debunk this claim have issues like including suicides, cherry picking specific violent crimes and excluding others, not accounting for gun purchases made in high risk areas because people buy out of fear (meaning violent crime was on the rise before the purchases), etc. One of the most reasonable studies I've seen is the one conducted by the CDC and was commissioned by the Obama administration. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s... The CDC concluded that it is an important deterrent to crime and found consistently lower injury rates for armed citizens compared with victims who used other defense methods (or had no defense method at all). What cops do is absolutely not irrelevant in this regard. I would like to remind you that ordinary citizens can usually legally detain and physically restrain a criminal and can perform a citizen's arrest when they witness a felony crime in progress. What better way to do that than with a gun? Also, any person can legally apply lethal force if their life is in jeopardy. Cops are granted the extra benefit of being able to apply lethal force when someone else's life is in jeopardy and theirs is not. Yes, a crucial reason behind the second amendment was to maintain the ability to fight against a tyrannical government. Another reason is the ability to fight on behalf of your government on an as-needed, short-notice type of scenario. The third main reason is what I mentioned - self-defense. The threats of that time were much greater - angry Brits that we snubbed, Native Americans that we killed, wild animals, etc. Plus the need to hunt. Being armed was a necessity. It was so obvious, that I think that part didn't even get mentioned in the second amendment. However, later on a number of states added specific state constitutional provisions that secured the right to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state". These provisions usually included an element of self/personal defense as well as the state or "common defense". These are separate things. A very clear example is Colorado - "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Please also keep in mind that since the constitution trumps all other laws (federal, state, etc.), all other laws that are passed must conform to the constitution to be considered legal and valid. Colorado's language is extremely clear and plain. It has never been overturned or deemed unconstitutional. This therefore means that the second amendment must contain the right to personal self-defense not in service of the nation. And it should be clear based on these state provisions that were all passed that it was clearly a major element.