The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[stanc]

Stan: Back to your old way or arguing again. The most extreme of a straw man that you shoot down and say it extends to everything.

It is not a straw man, extreme or otherwise, and I did not say it extends to everything.

In this case, you are citing three, very specific laws that have been enacted over the last century and extending your argument by saying 'because these laws were passed, private ownership of firearms by the American citizenry will not deter a tyrant from attempting to take over the country.'

You keep telling everyone that I said things I did not say. What I actually said is that, because those four laws -- and every other gun control law in the country -- were enacted, private ownership of guns is ineffective at providing a "check and balance" on government.

Private ownership of guns has not deterred the Congress from passing laws that "infringe" on the RKBA.
Private ownership of guns has not deterred the President from signing those unconstitutional laws.
Private ownership of guns has not deterred the police from enforcing those unconstitutional laws.
Private ownership of guns has not caused any of those unconstitutional laws to be repealed.

Your straw man is false, your extension into deterring a potential tyrant is invalid and historically false and is unproven.

I said nothing in that post about "deterring a potential tyrant," but since you bring it up, your statement that it is "historically false," is itself false. The people in the American colonies were armed, but that did not deter King George from tyrannical acts against them.

The fact is that you don't know how effective the 2A is in keeping a potential tyrant from taking control of the country because it hasn't happened yet.

I agree. We don't know.