Errm... as has been discussed in other parts of these two threads, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that people wouldn't have to wait for their government to provide them with weapons before they go to deffending their homes.
I think that's much less problematic now, so I don't see that as a major objection.
Do you know how remote some of the border areas are?
If they're remote, then logistically, they have little to fear from military invasion. The point of invasion is to seize
valuable targets, not worthless, remote ones.
Really most of this "self-defense from Canada" argumentation is just paranoia. In the meantime, nearly 30,000 people a year are paying the price with their lives - involuntarily - to keep us defended from fictional invasions from Canada. Color me not impressed.
I'm much more interested in the argument from
personal self-defense. The Constitution can be changed at literally any time, it's a living document that should guide, but not dictate, our response to the contingencies of the present. Arguments about the original intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment don't make much of an impression on me. It's undeniable that the proliferation of handguns has societal costs - no one seriously argues otherwise - but it's also undeniable that they have a utility in self-defense.
Where's the inflection point, I wonder? Where the costs to everybody else justify putting
you at risk by denying you a firearm? I don't expect Jon to have much of a cogent answer but it's an open question. For the next thread, I guess.