The gun is seen as the key to maintaining all freedoms: of body, of possession, and of rule.
The key to the freedom of the people is in the Second Amendment. No tyrannt can overcome them because they have been given the right to have a gun, in case they might want to join a well-regulated militia and overthrow the tyranny.
And for a revolution and the people to be able to rise up in secret they must be able to keep their guns secret from the government that they are "allowing" to exist, by respecting the electoral voters, the freedom of speech, and the behaviour and actions of the people around them.
(Why so many Libertarians and non-fundamentalist-religious, right-wing don't give a crap about marijuana and many other drugs. If something illegal becomes too commonly practiced many Second Amendment-ers believe it is the people's will exerting itself. I did not always understand this viewpoint.)
By defending the right of people to bear arms, which they feel is the cornerstone of freedom, believing Mao Tse Tung's famous quote "all power comes from the power of the gun", they are in fact defending all the power of the gun, which is intimately attached to who is holding the guns.
Hence, "the people" of this country having the right is just as, or even more important than the military and police right to carry guns.
Not all pro-gun people are supporters of the military, perhaps being of some sort of sovereign or other stance.
(I don't fully understand all of these groups and subsets. The patterns haven't emerged yet. I believe sovereign citizens believe in the full right of the individual, and will be disrespectful to the police and military to prove that point. I am trying to represent this in such a way that the people and argument I am representing would agree or have no point of disagreement on my representation of their stance.)
So that is why, so often, you see written in response on a comment thread "guns saved the world from naziism." (True quote.) It was Russian guns, in that instance, or perhaps even Hitler's own suicide pistol, but no matter, there is a very valid empirical point there.
German guns brought "naziism" into the world, and Russian guns saved the world from it. (Or at least, the Third Reich.)
The gun IS the power.
Sure, there have been times when mistakes have been made, and lines crossed. The U.S., for instance, is the only country to EVER use a nuclear weapon against the humans of another country. But everyone makes mistakes, and better his mistakes than whomever he is opposing at the moment. (If it weren't so deadly the world really just does resemble a bunch of little boys in gangs, constantly playing with toy soldiers. I can't wait til women take over running the world.)
But, continues the thinking, when he, the Second Amendment defender, is holding the gun, or the extension of him- for example, the military or the revolutionary militia or defenders against criminals and mass shooters- the gun is what allows him to defend this flawed America he loves so much.
This, might, in fact, be only demonstration of his love for this country. This country might be filled with all sorts of degenerate or otherwise unlikable people, and most probably do not understand the great lengths and sacrifices he must make.
He is even defending someone like me, someone that does not agree with his assessment that all power and freedom rest on the barrel of a gun. I am only able to defend that freedom because he defends me with that gun.
And we should thank him for that. (He believes.)
Many pro-gun people are willing to kill and die to defend the Second Amendment. And their guns. They express this openly, and vow again and again that they will kill anyone that tries to harm them-- criminals, gangs, corrupt governments either internal or external.
If there were some sort of take-over of the government, not only would they defend their right to the gun and its sacred Second Amendment rights to go home with any American, they would actually defend the Second Amendment with its own beneficiary.
So if there is a registry of guns, a gun owner's name will be on it.
Government lists can lead to concentration camps, as we know so well from Naziism, so lists are regarded as bad.
If "evil" people take over the government (because they are all just angels running things now) a gun owner's name will be on that list, along with Travis Bickle's, and Wayne LaPierre's, and Nancy Lanza, and James Holmes.
The government knowing who has the guns would definitely not be good for the revolution. (Although the angry entitled middle class white guy revolution is actually just starting right now, as I outline in my 5000 word thesis blog post.)
To someone for whom the gun is all the power, the internet and the Knowledge Revolution must be very bewildering. You can live off the grid, but very few do. Your cell phone is enough to track you, and you probably have been boasting about the new Bushmaster you bought. You might have even posted photos of it on Facebook.
But you probably don't get that the government has you well out gunned.
Random mass shootings are the only place where the individual gun really has any power. (Mass shooters are becoming the US version of the Muslim suicide bomber, except mass shooters do not use religion as an excuse to kill themselves and other people.)
Crime is predictable.
But they have you outgunned, for sure.
Now what you think and say, whole other matter. The government and law enforcement are much more interested in that.
They have demonstrated so very visibly just how interested they are in your emails and facebook status and blogging. And also especially your porn viewing habits and photographs you are emailing.
And now no law enforcement agency needs to worry about submitting a warrant to get a transcript of you drunk chatting with the ex on your new boytoys laptop.
While everyone was busy screaming about gun rights, FISA got a few more years and more strength.
Yes, yes, I know. Terrorists and pedophiles and criminals are out there, and we need to catch them. Mr. Second Amendment doesn't care about hiding anything but his gun. (And I think I made clear how little privacy anyone reading this blog actually has. It is not that difficult to track anyone's IP and location.)
He's not the problem-- all these other people out there are.
A foreign invader that killed three thousand people lived among us for five years legally. Guns don't stop everything. And actually, the internet spying would not have either. They were very careful. (How much better if all those neighbours of the terrorists, and flight instructors, and etc, had actually gotten to know these people? **
And if you are going to defend me while I continue to stand up for and defend my 1st Amendment rights, and if you are doing this for me, why is it wrong to demand some sort of regulations? Especially that you follow the same rules as the government military on learning gun safety, inventory of ammunition, and requiring licence and background check that you are-- as far as we can tell-- mentally sound?
Thank you for your effort at defending this entire country via your defense of your interpretation of the Second Amendment, but if this is really about "we the people" then we do all have the right to restrict your guns, or even make a (non-violent) revolution against you, if you "jump the gun" or equate "government takeover" with a black, Democratic President and "Naziism" with a ban on assault rifles.
You are willing to kill and die to defend the Second Amendment. That's great. We, the people, want a little say so -- and some updating to reflect the changes in firearms over the last 222 years-- in how you are going to do that.
If you are really worried about a government list, instead of waving your gun and threatening everyone, maybe you should focus on electing better officials to represent you.
I think the real question, Mr. Second Amendment, is this really about you protecting this country and freedom, or about your inability to live without the power you think your gun gives you?
**Footnote regarding the 9/11 bombers in this country and their life here among us:
Too many people couldn't see passed the fact they were Arab and Muslim. Being already intimidated and scared, or simply out of their depth, they could not assess real danger. They saw only the outsider, and their fear and avoidance of him was all he needed to stay undercover.
The same way a lot of white people in St. Louis cannot tell a true gang banger from a suburban middle class black kid. All they see is black. Conversely, I have had to explain to some black folks that not all bald-shaved, tattooed, white guys are racist skinheads.
The reverse is the person trying that is trying so hard not to judge, all they can see is what they are trying to ignore.
Most people have a very hard time being emotionally dishonest. If those terrorists had had to interact with people here more they would not have been able to keep up their facade.
Knowledge of your neighbourhood and community is much more important than a gun when it comes to terrorism, crime, and even foreign invasion.
I feel confident a terrorist would have a hard time living in my apartment building. I am not a total curtain sniffer, but I keep an eye on things. And I do not judge people by their culture, religion, race, etc. (Except, actually, for cops and the average conservative middle and working class white guys from this country. He really does have to prove himself to me sometimes. Call it a chip if you want. I call it a reflex. I have alot of scars.)