I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.
It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.
As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.
You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?
The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?
You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it
IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.
SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.
Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:
* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off
Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.