Why do so many american still think that guns keep the government in check?

Because that strategy worked so well at Waco.

You're quite right. NATO invaded Afghanistan but they have yet to pacify all of it, largely because Afghanistan is perfect country to fight a guerrilla war in. The US isn't -- all those plains and prairies would be deathtraps for militia armies. And of course they'd be totally outgunned - how long do you think a militia trying to fight in open country would last against mechanised infantry who have helicopter and artillery support?

Well afghanistan is a special country. those idiots there really believe into their virgins in "heaven"

But thewn again they still had no chance. The US controlls all mayor cities, and more so the apaches kill talibans even 2 miles away. they are defeated (ok they don´t give up) but they are still defeated.

That was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Where do you get that? Because it's not written in there. Here's what it says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And "security" of a "free State" meaning, law abiding American citizens have the right to bear arms to ensure their security.

Like, say, when you live out in the middle of nowhere and a bad criminal guy who wasn't supposed to own a gun, got a bunch and shot up innocent people in a church. If we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, then that other hero guy who was exercising his 2nd Amendment right, which was originally written for such purpose, wouldn't have been able to stop him, and protect himself and others. This is because it was originally written for those people way out on the frontier lands, without the support and security afforded to them, so it was necessary for the security of those people, and therefore, it is necessary for the "security" of a free state for such people to have the "right" to bear arms, if they need to.

If you actually read the Federalist papers, and the newspapers in the contemporary period of when the 2nd Amendment was written, you'd actually know, it had nothing to do with worrying about the government going all Bolshevik or Mao on its people, but about people in the hinter lands, and in places where they have no protection and deserve the right to regulate themselves against threats that our government can't do, because our government is not omnipotent or omnipresent, and as an educated society of free law abiding citizens, we are given the right to protect ourselves. It's necessary so the government doesn't have to be our babysitters, which is something we don't want. You know, everybody's freaking out about having schools be all secured and locked down with armed guards, like they're in prisons. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. So we don't have to be a police state always feeling like we're locked up in prison. We can have people protect themselves. Things go wrong, when you get a bunch of random nut balls using soft targets like schools to take out their mental problems, which was not really a big issue back in 1779. Unfortunately, now it is. But does that mean, we should become a police state, and not allow law abiding free citizens to be able to manage their own protection, even when the government neither has the means or ability to protect those people? This country is huge. Have you ever walked outside in the vast wilderness or grasslands? If you did, you'd know how big it is....

If you want to know the real purpose, there's a great article written in the, "Pennsylvania Gazette," (Philadelphia) which can be found on pages 2-3, of its issue from Wednesday, September 15, 1779, where they are discussing what Congress had decided, and why this needs to be "written" into our government structure, and it goes on and on about the poor frontier people out in the hinterlands, unprotected, and constantly being attacked by outside threats (not one iota is even mentioned about concerns over tyranny at the hands of the domestic government) but instead is entirely about how these people were having to make their own little protection forces in order to survive, so felt that this was an absolute necessity, since it was clear they had a need to be able to regulate a protection force for themselves, since the government was unable to help them. This is also hence where they came up with "well regulated militia" term, which was then ultimately used verbatim in the actual text of the Amendment. And also, because countries set up like the US, was a relatively unheard of phenomenon in those times since ancient Rome i.e., a democracy, i.e., to let the regular people to be entirely involved in the government. And so if we were going to make our country a democracy, then we also need to let the people be able to handle their own security, as they see fit. They were proposing that as we were a new democracy also needed to do things differently, if we didn't want to be like a totalitarian police state with government babysitters, and that meant, and even actually necessitated being able to handle our own security, and it had to be formally prescribed that the people could do so legitimately and without concern that you'd be thrown in prison for it, so made it be legally sanctioned.

Not really sure. I know one fact in history. Just a short time after Hitler, Mao, Stalin took the guns, the genocide began? Does that help. https://youtu.be/5hlAX0g5es8

Walk us thru it, break it down for us... Government calls you and tells you to kill your neighbors, then? You slice mom's throat as commanded and then you? Guns are useless because government will bomb, blast, nuke the country leaving nothing and nobody to rule over? What's going thru the military's mind as they murder their family, friends and neighbors? Why would an army of we the people kill the people?

Nato, a foreign people coming to invade. Different scenario entirely, but much more interesting. Apples and oranges, you're a bit mixed up. There are interesting discussions about the UN, a one world order and the ability to send foreign troops to America. There are interesting arguments surrounding Constitution, this aint one.

Is the whole constitution obsolete now? Do you think if Republicans were not allowed to sign it then we would be gun free today. They added the crazy gun stuff obviously. My study of Constitution makes make me think the founders could nearly see the future.

AK 47 Russian Garbage and it's not AK 72 The Russian Army went to the AK 74 after studying the terminal ballistic effects of The 5.56 NATO round in Vietnam.

I notice you do not indicate that NATO ever had any success in subduing Afghanistan.

And then there is the Mau Mau rebellion, Yugoslav resistance, French Resistance, the Jedburghs, Viet Minh, Viet Cong, Malay crisis rebels, Algerian crisis rebels, Arab uprising (WWI), IRA. They all had a serious impact in their time.

Most people who make similar claim, do not possess the heart and stamina to take the risks and potential consequences involved.

It isn't our guns that keep our Government in check. It's our votes, and our Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.