No you’re missing the point I think. The point is that a gun let’s you defend yourself from tyranny. And that is a sufficient number of people find a government tyrannical they can choose to organize against them by not following their tyrannical laws which are illegitimate. And the tyrannical government would have to take up arms against these people to enforce their power with the knowledge these people can defend themselves.
Guns rights are about defense not coercion per-se. The knowledge that the public is already armed is a deterrent in even trying to create or enforce law that meets this criteria. Thankfully we aren’t there and I hope we never will, but as they chip chip chip away you start to wonder what will be tried next.
I am not missing the point, you are. Guns aren't some abstract concept you get to hand-wave away, they have exactly one function -- to kill things.
You "defend yourself from tyranny" by killing patriots of your own country. That's literally the only way to do it, so when you say things like "defend yourself from tyranny" you are saying, "I'm willing to murder cops and soldiers." because that's who you'll have to "defend yourself from tyranny" against.
There is no way around this, it is the direct meaning of the words and phrases you're using. What you are doing is using the threat of murder to try and get your way in a society.
Nah, you’re missing the point entirely I think and you’re trying to use language devices to create a straw man.
You wouldn’t be defending yourself from patriots. Patriots wouldn’t take up arms against an oppressed citizenship they swore to protect. You’re logic says the SS were patriots. They were not (even if their government found them to be lawful) and anyone who shot them as they raided an innocent persons home is a hero. There are innumerable examples of this throughout history and I’d argue is the default state of power historically.
Machiavelli wrote hundreds of years ago that liberty can only be secured by the passion of a citizenry. That a paid militia can never secure it in the long run. This type of philosophy is in part what 2a is premised on.
I don’t think most anyone says we need to be armed so we can threaten violence if we don’t get our way on an arbitrary issue. I’m not saying Australia doesn’t pass this particular law if society is armed. But I do think I’d feel better about the direction the government is going if I knew my neighbors were armed.
