That isn't the idea.Citizens using guns has little correlation with making real changes within a democratic government. Three of the world's greatest agents of change changed the world and they never raised a weapon or committed violence; Jesus Christ, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. The idea that the population needs to be armed to affect change in a democratic country is a lazy lie.
The idea is the last resort for protection of rights, not fomenting political change (althouigh it's enlightening that YOU see the role of guns as forcing change, akin to how Socialist nd Communists see guns, as tool for political violence and domination).
The citizenry has the right to own weapons as a check against Govt. abuse in only the worst-case sceanarios. Not as a tool to change Government in peacetime or over anything less than the most dire of abuses.
So I'll ask again, are you willing to place the same limits on speech, voting and religion that you're willing to put on gun ownership?As for the right to own weapons and having restrictions; there already are some restrictions for other rights. The first amendment affords us the freedom of speech but it does not allow you to say anything to anyone. Your rights should never infringe on the rights of others. Having a society which allows mentally ill citizens to amass weapons is the height of stupidity and absolutely infringes on the rights of other citizens.
And I'll say this again, an individual opwning a gun does not, in ANY way, infringe upon your rights.
It is only when an individual chooses to use that gun (or a truck, or a knife, or a pipe, etc.) that your rights have been infringed.
Your argument appears to be that to protect your rights from a possible (althoughs unlikely) potential infringement, you're willing to infringe upon the rights of everyone else for the mere appearence of added safety.
Interesting you'd take that position, given the similarity of it with your political opposites when it came to the Patriot Act.