Absolutely it's cultural and I accept that the historical context explains the situation, but it doesn't for a minute make it okay in my mind. I just accept that there's only so far rational arguments go when something is so culturally embedded.
But no, that doesn't make it ok or beyond criticism. I think it represents and imbalance between the rights of the individual and collective rights. I think the right to live in a country where people aren't routinely walking around with weapons is far more important than an individual's right to 'protect themselves'.
The second amendment is a collective right. The right, as you say, of the citizenry to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. But it talks specifically about a militia being well armed.
It does not talk about people carrying guns to protect themselves against eachother. Nor does it talk about people carrying guns because guns are fun. Nor because guns make them feel powerful. Which I would think, if you're honest, covers the main reasons why the vast majority of people own guns.
There's no rational argument for the carrying of guns that stands up to scrutiny. They clearly don't work as a deterrant since your rates of homocide, homocide with a gun and armed robbery are all higher. They don't work for self defence for the aforementioned reason and also because if you carry a gun then you're more likely to die should a violent situation ensue than if you don't. They wouldn't work for the overthrow of a tyrannical government because while you have, at best, AKs and AR-15s and so on, the government has tanks, f-22s, helicopter gunships, artillery and guided missiles.
You carry guns because you enjoy carrying, owning and using guns. That's fine, I understand that. It can't be rationalised though and I don't think it's worth the price.
, , , , , , , , , ,
`' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o)
*\* |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__)
''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”----
,'.*''`
|