"And the Second Amendment exists for a reason. Governments are less likely to turn on their people if the latter are widely armed." Do you really think so? I

"And the Second Amendment exists for a reason. Governments are less likely to turn on their people if the latter are widely armed." Do you really think so? I support the libertarian spirit of the amendment, and I do think it was a legitimate argument in past centuries, but today I can't imagine that hunting rifles and 9mms even break the Top 10 list as to why the military doesn't stage a coup. (If you think that's an argument for relaxed gun control, consider what types of weapons and what kind of prevalence would be necessary to compete with US armed forces. Not being an expert, I'd imagine we would need assault rifles, RPGs, and everything else we see over in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, the drawbacks of that kind of civilian militarization far outweigh the benefits.) If you're curious, these might be my actual Top 10 (unordered): free speech and press; large territory; widespread education and literacy; fast, reliable, long-distance communication; an active Congress; civilian presidents; diversity (in all the usual categories -- ethnicity, religion, politics, etc); wealth; peace; social mobility. After all, even a dictator requires the consent of the governed.