Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Further support that even the good intentions may well end up causing harm.
However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.
A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.
To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).
To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational
And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.
To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.
There were many who called GW Bush a tyrant for the Patriot Act. And just today, our FBI director was asked if it was legal for the government to kill a US citizen on US soil and he actually said he would have to check into it. The context of this discussion was the FBI's explanation of the legal aspect of killing an American citizen on foreign soil if he was deemed an imminent threat. The very discussion is unimaginable to most Americans - where is the due process guaranteed to every citizen? And who gets to decide "imminent threat". The Justice Department's position that the FBI was explaining was the due process was effectively practiced based on how they selected their targets. Really? Really? My point is, the concern about tyranny is real.
Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down. The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231). If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????