You're more than welcome Robert and agreement isn't required, though civil disagreement is certainly appreciated, so thanks for that.

Perhaps the variance of our history colors my decisions regarding the 2nd amendment pretty heavily but in my mind an unarmed citizenry is little more than serfs who then MUST bend to the will of their masters as this then creates a less than level playing field.

Imagine as you might envision a US where citizens no longer have guns, none at all. Do you think this would then mean the government would follow suit and limit all gun usage to within the military? My thoughts are no, they would not. The governmental overlords would surely still utilize guns to protect and just as surely empower themselves above the rest of us. This then leads to a 2 tiered system where the laws are to be applied differently in relation to the governed and the governing. Sorry man, but you nor anyone else will ever lead me to believe that's a reasonable course of action.

Is our system of laws and governance perfect? That would be a resounding no. However, it is a system that's served us well for the most part for over 200yrs now. The Constitution has and can be amended and surely will be again at some point, but getting us to turn in our guns isn't likely to ever be a change we as a nation would ever embrace.

In places like Texas that would never happen without a military incursion, even if the Constitution was amended and would likely also lead to our eventual secession from the US. In my opinion, it's really our only viable option already if we are ever to end the madness being foisted upon us by the federal government.

Onto your mention of the 5th amendment and the underlying reasoning behind its inclusion in our system of laws.

In a judicial system where the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty it means the burden of proving guilt falls to the accuser. With that in mind the accused has the right to choose whether to testify in their own defence or not, as best suits their case and its facts.

Oftentimes "pleading the 5th" when asked a question throws a pall of an expectation of guilt upon the one choosing this tack, so why should the government have the ability to cast such a pall on every case? Hence the protection of not having to testify in ones own defence eliminates that possibility and again forces the accuser to prove their case without the accuseds testimony.

While my thoughts on the ability for an accused to plead the 5th vacillates due the the accused and whatever facts have been presented, I always am willing to accept this as a tenet of our imperfect judicial system and respect the accused's choice in the matter