I think that the "bulwark against totalitarian rule" idea comes in two versions. The naive version imagines that the USA suffers an actual attempt at a military

I think that the "bulwark against totalitarian rule" idea comes in two versions. The naive version imagines that the USA suffers an actual attempt at a military coup, and that the coup is defeated by gunfights started by armed citizens. The sophisticated version asks about ambitious young men: when they dream of gaining political power, what route to the top do they dream of? If you are an ambitious young man in a country that has had military coups in the recent past, you might join the army, hoping to rise in ranks and be in the right place at the right time. That could also apply in a country with disarmed civilians. It is no part of the American dream. If you want political power in the USA you go to law school (or into banking?) The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny because it shapes the Zeitgeist. It makes the idea of staying in office after losing an election seem silly: you would only get shot. Since the very idea is silly the scenario is never played out. This poses a puzzle to the would be Hari Seldons amongst us. Does the 2nd Amendment inherently undermine itself? Do we end up, after two hundred years of political freedom, thinking that the idea of protection against tyranny being provided by an armed citizenry is just plain silly, because we never see it in action? Where does that lead? Do we repeal the 2nd Amendment, leaving our grandchildren to discover, one hundred years later, that the Zeitgeist has changed and that old Amendment really mattered?