The irony is that your signature decries the forgotten rights in the BoR yet you want to get rid of one of those rights because you don't like it.
I will quote myself because I highlighted this in different comments:
"...A physical thing compared to an idea or virtue or process. Compare "they'll take my gun from my cold dead hands" versus when do you have a right of privacy online when using a private company server traversing public/international infrastructure. One is a little easier to understand with much less subtlety and nuance that do not overlap with another Right.
An interesting read is about the invention/propagation of telephone/telegraph and what the government did with that new technology to stop criminal activity. A lot of similarities to today. It took a while for the courts and the legislatures to apply the Bill of Rights to that new technology (privacy, searches and seizures, etc) but they got there and we formed some good protections to those technologies as I am sure we will eventually understand and apply to modern technologies. ...it is becoming harder to understand these rights in conjunction with the other rights we hold dear. (private property of the server, the public access to infrastructure, privacy of the individual, and impartiality of public accommodations) for just one example."
most irrelevant one: The second... . Do you think that means that you're by any stretch of imagination a threat to your government or that you can keep it "in check" that way? I hold your gun and raise you an army.
You have a very narrow view of what the 2nd is for if you think it is only for holding the government to account. To quote msyelf in a previous comment because lazy.
"The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Something thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in California storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence and crime. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
The right of arms means that even if rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggressions, the right of arms gives individual citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does."
You people are really the perfect people any dictator could want.
How is that different than any other people on earth?