I will never understand the "you need a gun to protect yourself from tyranny" argument.

So in order to keep the government from turning tyrannical, we need to have a large armed militia to scare the government into being non tyrannical. But then that itself is tyranny. How does this logic even make any sense? The government can't do anything because there is a large armed militia? Sounds like the government is being tyrannized. All in the name of freedom. That's like saying you need a dictator to keep someone from becoming a dictator. <br><br>There is no reason why you would ever in your life need a gun to defend yourself from tyranny. You live in the USA, not Syria. The government will never come to your house and ram a gun in your mouth. The only thing they are going to do is raise your taxes, and in a democracy, the people control the government. If you don't like high taxes, vote for the other party. You live in a Representative Republic, you have no right to fight the government for tyranny when you can simply vote. <br><br>I agree you do need a gun to protect yourself from tyranny. But that tyranny is not the government, it is a tyrannical government. And if the government is tyrannizing a large group of people, you don't need to take up arms. You need to get a new government, and the best way to do that is through peaceful process. The government doesn't need to be taken down with guns. <br><br>You're not defending liberty when you take up guns against the government. You are taking down a democracy that defends your right to bear arms in the first place.