Negative examples don't work too well, since I can point at, say, the US at many points and say "doesn't look like a great example of liberty"—meanwhile, progre

Negative examples don't work too well, since I can point at, say, the US at many points and say "doesn't look like a great example of liberty"—meanwhile, progress toward such doesn't seem to have had much to do with our having lots and lots of private firearms. Meanwhile, there are plenty of relatively "disarmed" countries that remain quite free. So what factor, if any, do private arms play in the preservation of liberty and democracy? That's what I'm trying to get at. We take it as true that the 2nd amendment is absolutely vital to maintaining freedom, but... is there any reason to think that's true? I'm genuinely trying to figure that out.