Guns and violence

All of which limits law-abiding citizens and does nothing to prevent criminals from doing anything.

I was mostly joking but to answer your question the benefit would a much more efficient and effective organization at preventing illegal gun sales.....at least IMO.

I'm not in any way advocating this but some would argue that ensuring the people have the ability to do just that is the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment.

I'm not advocating door-to-door gun confiscation like they did in the UK, but they do have 1.6% of our total gun deaths. You can't argue with results.

Dumb question from me (I don't own guns). What good does the 53rd gun do you? One man can only carry so many guns. Aren't you just at some point allowing people to arm themselves as well as others?

Here in PA you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in about 10 minutes. The law is that unless they have a reason to not sell you a gun, they can sell it to you same day. The store just takes your id and makes a phone call. If everything checks out, you get your gun. That goes for ALL guns.

I get the constituational argument and potential revolution and all that, but do you really think the revolution is going to come down to some assault rifles and handguns or do you think it will come down to control of the military as it does in most countries (e.g. Egypt, Syria)? I don't care how well armed the Michigan Militia has become, if they tried actual revolt it would take all of four hours to...

^this. I don't necessarily think that stockpiling is a good or the right idea, but I think the founders intended a healthy amount of fear/respect between the administrators and the citizenry in an effort to prevent tyranny.

Isn't the syrian revolt still ongoing? way longer than 4 hours.

They don't have our military.

We had our military in the Iraqi Insurgency. How long did that last? Without political solutions, it could have likely lasted indefinitely. This is what I think the founders were hoping for in relation to having an armed populace.

In this sort of situation our military wouldn't be as effective as you might think.

You need to head over to the CDC website.

Insurgency and revolution/civil war are not the same thing. While I see what you're saying, I don't think that the 2nd amendment will make much of a difference if outright revolution occurs when compared to the power of the party that controls the military. You can insurge all you want, but as long as they control the armed forces, they're calling the shots and they're winning. Just ask Bashar al-Assad. Mubarak might have left Egypt eventually even if he kept control of the military, but there's no way he was staying without it.

While not the same thing, I think the 2nd amendment was intended to provide a counterweight for the citizenry to do something about both. It may not be equal sided, but the intention was to level the playing field.

You may be correct, but which side would you want to be on?

These guys:

or the ones who have this?

The point is it likely wouldn't be so easily divided, depending on the scenario the military could split. Also, there's a limited amount of fuel and munitions not to mentioned all the skilled personnel it takes to upkeep all the high-tech equipment. If you're talking about a societal breakdown you're likely to lose a large portion of the military to defections. And there's no guarantee which 'side' the military would take. The officers take an oath to support the Constitution not the President.

MOST people don't own 53 guns because they are so paranoid they will need them all, they have 53 guns because they are collectors or hunters with different applications for each gun.

Insuring that abortion remains legal and gasoline stays unleaded.

We can't.

Freedom has a price. And the price of the Second Amendment is increased gun deaths.