> And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, G

> And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." (emphasis mine) Well, yes. Those are not "words that support killing people". You might as well say that countries that own nuclear weapons thereby demonstrate intent to eradicate life on Earth. The intended deterrence game theory is much the same. > nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," This line of argumentation proves far too much. All definitions are subjective in this manner. > But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment. To my understanding (I quickly searched up https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-amendment/ https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-a... and by a quick read it seems to align with what I understood of the history) this is not simply "Kirk's philosophy", but something the Founders (and other political thinkers of the time) were explicit about.