[Max2147]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I'd say GR is right on the money with this one. Some of you have valid points concerning "cornerstone-ness ", but consider this;

The cornerstone of any nation is violence, and the threat of violence. If you break a law, you go to jail. No violence there, necessarily. But if you resist the authority of the state to put you in jail, you get violence. Sometimes lethal violence.
If a state attacks another state, violence does the talking.

The U.S. was conceived from tyranny. Or percieved tyranny, if you're loyalist.
The Bill of Rights is a list of protections of freedoms. Limitation on government.
However, if the government attempts to violate those freedoms, the people have the threat of armed violence with which to respond.

That it is why it is the cornerstone. No matter what the state tries to do, the people have the power to bring it down. It is the single greatest freedom gauranteed by the Bill of Rights. No other right protects the people from tyranny as much as that one, and as long as it is "not infringed" upon, the other rights can be defended.

Do you really think the state restrains itself out of fear of armed violence? Regardless of gun ownership laws, the state still has the overwhelming advantage in firepower. The people can respond with armed violence, but it would just be suicide.

Besides, according to Weber's widely accepted definition, a state must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in order to exist. So by admitting that a use of force outside of the state's control would be somehow legitimate, a state ceases to exist as a state.

You do have a point that the ultimate power the people have is to bring down the government. But in the US Constitution that power is granted by elections, not by the 2nd Amendment.

If the United States ever gets to the point where private gun ownership is the only thing between us and tyranny, then it's too late. The belief that private citizens armed with guns can save themselves against the might of a state intent on taking away their liberty is an egotistical delusion. I've studied plenty of dictatorships, and I don't know of a single case where private gun ownership did anything to stop an infringement on liberty. A dictatorship rises or falls based on its relation to the military, not gun toting citizens.