I fear this one is used too often - even by elements of the NRA. As if civilians, with semi-automatic weapons and no trainiong would be any match for the trained military and police is ludicrous to me. In passing, this would be an armed uprising, commonly known as revolt/revolution (depending on scale). How on earth would this in any way defend a constitution? It would destroy it.<quoted text>But the 2nd amendment was all about the tyranny of government. It had nothing to do with hunting. An armed people are a free people.
Many countries have much tougher gun laws than the US - do you suggest their people are any less free than US citizens?