Arguments Against Second Amendment

As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, once said, "the beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." These debates are nothing new to Americans, because it has been in discussion since the colonial times of the United States. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights.
Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against
Three, in particular, were the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder, the 1774 to 1775 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder, and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of King George III; including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people” (US 1776). As the war went on, the British always remembered that without gun control, they could never control America. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal
A law enforcement officer derives its authority from the government, and all the power it has, and their power from their gun which can take someone’s life at their discretion, compelling people to obey them. The government derives it from the people and people forget that. For authority to exist, it must have power itself or the loyalty of power. In our government, our elected officials don't carry guns, but they have the loyalty of the military instead. The only way a populace can challenge this power, is if they have equal or greater power which can only be the case in an armed populace (Does the Second Amendment protect citizens from a tyrannical government?