> Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people.
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
Does the existence of the problems not demonstate that that idea has failed in practice?
No, it doesn’t mean it has failed, it just means it alone is not sufficient. Just like how a century of american prosperity wasn’t solely due to gun rights.
Like many other laws and policies, 2nd amendment alone is not sufficient.
The better question to find the answer to your query is.
Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline?
> Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline?
> I don’t think so.
I don't think that's the right question at all.
I don't want to make changes to "magically save America and stop its marching decline" (whichever decline you happen to be peddling).
I want to make changes to get fewer people in America shot in the short-to-mid-term.
Do you still believe that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would hasten an American collapse? Because I haven't seen it effectively stop ANY so-called government overreach, and don't believe it will prevent any in the future either.
In the long-term, it also introduces its own existential risk: why should I assume "the citizens people with the most guns who do the best in a revolution" would institute a government better for me than the current American one?
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
Does the existence of the problems not demonstate that that idea has failed in practice?
It's supposed to do that, but it ain't.
Iterate.