Originally Posted by
foxtrot
Biggest benefit: Peaceful check and balance. Politics runs up against an invisible barrier where politicians worry about *issing off the populace to the point where they take up arms. This may sound ridiculous at first, but look at the current admins labeling of domestic extremists, some of the "Obama" quotes and their complete unwillingness to tackle "gun control" and certain other issues now, despite that being one of the biggest elements of their campaign platform. Not because they don't want to, because they fear what will happen to them if they do (not getting reelected or worse) There is always a degree of corruption in politics. Firearm ownership is THE check and balance that ensures we will continue holding elections for a long time in the future. Firearm ownership also protects minority opinions. Because you don't have to *iss off the entire country, you just need to *iss off a small number of them badly enough - so it helps us avoid becoming a true democracy (which many liberals really want us to be) AKA mob rule (we are a republic).
All this benefit without a shot being fired. This is also the underlying intent of the second amendment. Contrary to what hollywood and liberals would want you to believe, the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
The more "control" you have, and the greater difference between forces (military, peace officer, civilian) the less effect this check and balance has. Which is part of the reason many politicians push for "gun control" in the first place.
And force equalizer - as has been mentioned, that is not in regards to the military. It's in regards to a 90 year old grandma defending against a 6'4" 260 pound assailant. Firearms are pretty much the only thing that can "level" the playing field.
