The main argument that has been raised for the existence of the second amendment is historical - that it was required then for whatever reason (King, slaves, whatever) and therefore it still has validity now. I absolutely deny that argument.
I would bring up the Second Amendment not to argue that the use it had back then makes it valid now, but to point out that I do believe that
the fact that it got codified in the Constitution has
effects now. It turned it from a philosophical proposition to an example of the concept of "rights that government must protect", which made it "something which it would be evil to violate". Growing up with this right grouped together in the same place with all of the others in the Constitution makes it also occupy the same place with all other rights in people's minds. It's not that there's a general concept of "fundamental rights" as a category and the question is whether to include this one; it's that this is one of the original things that that concept of fundamental rights grew around and was shaped by. Trying to get someone to agree to a concept of fundamental rights that excludes one of the things that have always defined fundamental rights to him/her would be like trying to get someone to simply decide to have a concept of human relationships that is not based on his/her early childhood relationships, or trying to get an ivy plant to unwrap itself from its lattice.
Also, just the fact that it's part of the Constitution has not only the above cultural conceptual effects but also a technical one: repealing it would be repealing something that the law/government itself calls a fundamental right. And what kind of government does that? One that doesn't really consider fundamental rights to be fundamental rights and considers itself entitled to take them away from people who have done nothing to forfeit them. That's true of
any termination of a listed right, whether or not one thinks the practical effects in any specific case would be good. No matter how benevolent a case could be made for it, it's still the government first saying the citizens are entitled to a certain right and then taking it away anyway.
No, I haven't. What does it mean?
"Molon labe" was the Spartans' answer to the Persians at Thermopylae when they got the message "Lay down your weapons": "Come and get them".
I believe the fact that the quote comes from a tiny force defending their home to their last breath against a gigantic invading force illustrates my point in the paragraph right above it: a government taking away an established right can only be seen as intolerably hostile; there simply isn't any concept of a good government trying to do good by eliminating an established right of its subjects citizens. Whether the right should have been established in the first place or would be today doesn't matter; once it's there, there is only one mode in which eliminating it could possibly be considered, just because any person/government not operating in that mode wouldn't consider it.
What could possibly convince me that it is a good idea to allow ordinary people to walk around in public with easy and instant access to a means of quickly and easily killing another human being?
The highlighted bit brings me to what I think is an even bigger issue than the rest I just said. I think most modern Occidental people other than Americans look at social issues from a population-wide perspective, and Americans insert themselves into the scenario as an example and look at it from the perspective of how it affects themselves. So a gun rights debate isn't just a vague distant hypothetical thing about the numbers of other people owning guns or how many times they get used somewhere out there per year; it's people telling
me that
I shouldn't be allowed to have one. So, for example, arguments about how badly other people might misuse them don't matter because
I'm not one of those people and wouldn't do that (and for that matter such an argument is an accusation that I am and would), and arguments about the rarity of occasions where they might be truly needed don't matter because they don't consider what
I'm supposed to do
if such a rare occasion
does happen to
me.
