If private ownership of guns were necessary to prevent tyranny, it would be very rare to find a democracy still existing without gun ownership. This clearly isn’t the case. If, however, gun ownership has nothing to do with whether the government becomes tyrannical, you could easily find whatever combination of gun ownership and government type that you wanted.

I am in no way claiming that gun ownership is bad for democracy. I’m just claiming it isn’t good either. Gun control might be a bad idea, but not because it would lead to tyranny, and the other reasons don’t seem like things that rise to the level of constitutional protection.

And yes, the cultures are different. Guns are much more culturally important to Americans than to the Japanese, and that’s a good argument for the US having looser gun control than Japan. I just don’t think cultural importance qualifies something for constitutional protection. Baseball is also culturally important. It’d be idiotic to ban it. However, if for whatever reason a majority of Americans felt they were safer without it, I wouldn’t want the courts trying to overrule them.

I assume he is also basing his point on western Europe. I do not think that our two cultures are as similar as some would liek us to believe.

An unarmed populace and/or a standing army were considered precursors to tyranny, but we’ve since seen a plethora of totally functioning democracies that have very strict gun control laws. Moreover, in US history there is no evidence that this works. An armed revolt is totally contrary to the rule of law, and those who resort to it tend to do so more because of displeasure with the law than because they were treated unjustly by it.

I’m sure he’d be happy to discuss this point further if you disagree with it, but I thought for now I’d just point it out.

Source

For the sake of argument, I do think it is plausible that gun control could reduce the number of muggers with guns. Guns aren’t exactly something you can make in your basement. You could easily mandate that manufacturers have to account for each gun, reporting the eventual owner (who would have to have legal permission to have it) or prove it was destroyed when not sold. And, of course, the jail sentence for getting caught with an illegal gun would deter some people. Obviously, many guns will get by, because of bribery, fraud, smuggling, etc., but it’d be a reduced number. It would mean less accidental gun deaths, less armed muggers, but less well-defended mugging victims. The question is just which effect will be greater. That’s a policy decision, not a rights decision. Whether gun control is a good idea could very well vary based on time period, region, etc. That means it’s not a fundamentally illegitimate government act, and should be decided by a legislature.

Banning the practice of a religion is bad. It’s unjust no matter what motivation the government had or how large a majority supports it. It’s not a legitimate government action. That’s the kind of thing the Bill of Rights exists to stop, and I don’t see how gun control falls in that category.