It’s impossible to repeal so they would be idiots to campaign on it. I wouldn’t put it above morons like warren or Bernie to campaign on though. There’s no way you’d get 2/3 of States to vote to demolish part of the bill of rights after 230 years
"We should keep the second amendment not because it has any benefit to society, but because getting rid of it is hard"
Well if there’s an armed burglar in my home and my family is at risk, the 2A benefits society. If a rapist attacks an armed woman and she’s able to shoot him it benefits society, if there’s anarchy after a disaster and you need to protect your stuff from looters, it benefits society. If someone is being beaten to within an inch of his life and you shoot the attacker it benefits society. Gun control laws won’t do anything to effect criminals. It’s not like they’re gonna be like “oh darn it. Looks like we need to turn our guns in.” If libs thought with their logic and common sense and not on feelings they’d notice that they’re better off with the 2A too. What if there’s a lynch mob of Klansmen going after a black activist? Wouldn’t it be better if he had a gun to defend himself from the klan?
Every single one of those examples can be turned on their heads and reframed such that the gun is a problem, e.g., a lynch mob of klansmen with several guns would overpower a black activist with a single gun. It's an issue that has a lot of gray, which is why an absolutist interpretation of the amendment is moronic.
Wouldn’t he have a better chance of surviving with a gun though? It’s not total protection but it gives you a fighting chance if you’re threatened. What about a 95 pound female college student who has to fight off a 275 pound rapist? Unlike the liberals rape survival guide of “pee on the attacker’s” (I’m not kidding that was an actual suggestion) a gun can help a 95 pound woman protect herself against a behemoth of an attacker
The problem with your abstract hypotheticals is that they totally ignore what happens in reality. People in households with guns are likelier to be injured or killed than people in households without guns. In households without guns you don't have accidental shootings; you don't have gun suicides; and you don't have guns used in domestic violence. It is far far likelier an abuser will shoot their victim(s) than be deterred by their victims getting access to a gun.
Similarly, armed peasants lose to armed troops unless some outside force helps them as happened during the American Revolution. It wasn't the Minutemen that won the Revolution, it was the French. Even with weapons, those Ukrainian kulaks you mentioned in another post would have still lost unless some outside power had been willing to intervene.
