Odds and Ends
Armed to immobilize
6 9, 8:52pm
What I'm referring to is that people point to the second amendment as their reason to have weapons, while forgetting what's really in there. Just shouting "second amendment" without understanding why it was instituted, is not exactly a valid argument. Plenty of people have guns for all the wrong reasons (e.g. to commit crimes), and while having guns to protect oneself from criminals may be a valid reason, they generally don't consider that fewer guns in society overall might be a good thing. Just look at Europe. While there's the occasional shooting or gang war with innocent bystanders, as a general rule we don't fear each other.
One point is mass shootings. They happen at an alarming rate, and apparently mostly when a society has a large number of guns and easy access to them for people who really shouldn't, coupled with widespread fear/hatred of other ethnicities. Add to that irresponsible law enforcement, partisan propaganda, and a lobby with a financial interest in selling guns, and you have a powder keg of a society full of armed, angry, scared people.
"The people are the well regulated militia". Does it look like it is well regulated? Is every gun owner a responsible citizen? If a well regulated militia is the goal, then Switzerland does the job a lot better than the US. and you should draw inspiration from there.
The point of the "well regulated militia" is, as you point out, to prevent government takeover. I'd point to the standard "army/navy/air force vs guy with assault rifle" argument, but the takeover is kinda already happening, just not by force. Look at how the richest 1% is screwing over the rest of the population. Look at the current administration, and the string of scandals that would topple any other administration. It seems to me that the people who hold guns for fear of a government takeover, already is on the side of the government, and point to the other (mostly unarmed) side being what they're afraid of.