1.  In that case, you're either lacking a complaint against those who don't consider the 2nd A. a basic human right or you're asking me to defend a position that I do not hold.

2.  I never said "world consensus".  Sorry, but you've wandered into Strawman Argument territory if you mean to suggest that I did.

1. Do you consider self-defense to a be a basic human right? 

2. A lack of a second amendment <=/=> a lack of a right to self-defense. Considering not every country actually represents its population, nope, there is "no consensus." Unless you believe we live in a perfectly democratic world, which is an odd position for a socialist, there is no consensus. There is just majoritarian (or less) rule. 

I reassert George Orwell, his view is the consistent socialist one. 

Hell, even Marx knew why gun ownership must be a thing. 

No sane socialist would give up the people's right to defend themselves against their oppressors willingly. 


A people without guns can't assert their rights. The ruling classes who always have access to guns/militaries will never give up their power to a people who can't back up their claims to self-ownership and autonomy with the ability to defend themselves when these are trampled. 

1. And yet dozens of countries without such an equivalent to the 2nd A. still grant their People the right to self-defense.  

2. And yet people without guns manage to assert their rights all the time.

Bye!

The old "I think I know what my oppononents position on this is, so I'm going to attack them for it even though they haven't done anything yet" trick. Throwing in extra rediculous hypothises isn't helping your case, nor is it helping the people who were shot.

According to you, the rights of people in these countries are "granted" by the benevolence of the bourgeois state, so quite obviously they aren't asserting them, the bourgeois state is allowing them to have them out of deference to cost mitigation. Meanwhile in the United States people have the means do defend themselves against oppression. Guns have saved black lives from the Klu Klux Klan. Guns have saved laborers from private corporate armies. Private gun ownership has secured liberty for many, when the state militias and police turned their eyes away, citizens organized and defended themselves. 

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/07/06/a-brief-history-of-socialist-support-for-gun-rights/

"For blacks in the 19th century South, as we know, the nightmare scenario that had haunted President Wilson was very much a reality. As Historian David Kopel has noted, in the 1800s, “gun control laws were exclusively a Southern phenomenon.” The only people allowed guns in the antebellum South were whites. Blacks found with weapons were often executed on the spot. After the Civil War, nervous whites—Democrats, all—feared freed slaves’ having access to guns and made weapons bans part of their punitive Black Codes. So determined were they in this endeavor that when the federal occupying authorities deemed the Black Codes illegal, gun control for blacks was enforced after hours by the Ku Klux Klan. 

Given this history, it is understandable that some of the firmest proponents of gun ownership in the 20th century were black Americans. “Article number two of the constitutional amendments,” Malcolm X argued, “provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.” Even such proponents of nonviolence as Martin Luther King, Jr. purchased a firearm and installed armed guards around his house (one visitor likened it to an armory). The cornerstone of the self-styled Maoist group the Black Panthers rather worshiped guns."

"Nor were white socialists against gun ownership. Eugene Debs, a four-time socialist candidate for President, saw gun control as a means for capitalists to install a tyranny over a weaponless working class. (Debs would pay the price for such views; he was jailed by President Wilson for criticizing American involvement in World War I.)"

But Americans weren't the only ones. 

"Another world war later and across the ocean, another socialist would oppose gun control. George Orwell, who, as Christopher Hitchens once wrote, was “conservative in many things but not politics,” supported the right of the citizen to bear arms. Some might say that it was only natural that a former coolie-crushing colonial policeman such as Orwell would be a gun enthusiast. But Orwell viewed gun control through a politically socialist, not a law-and-order, lens:

“That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

These sentiments were based on hard-worn experience. As a soldier on the Loyalist side during the Spanish Civil War, Orwell was aware that it was only the citizenry breaking into the armory that initially repelled Francisco Franco’s fascist-backed rebellion. When Joseph Stalin, who “backed” the Loyalist side, sought to import his murderous purge trials into Spain, and thus kill off any non-communists on the Loyalist side, his first order of business was confiscating the Loyalist fighters’ weapons. Orwell, having the misfortune of belonging to a Trotskyite militia,  engaged in street fighting agianst these gun confiscators.

And so, personally aware of how a tyrant crushed his weaponless opposition, Orwell was determined for this never to happen again. In 1940, when a Nazi invasion of his native Britain seemed all but imminent, Orwell joined a citizen’s militia, the Home Guard, which was deliberately modeled on the “people’s army” of Spain (many of the volunteers had fought there). This group was tasked with protecting England’s bridges and railroads and, if necessary, fighting from house to house. But Orwell saw a bigger role: that of ensuring that a home-grown fascist coup and/or separate peace would never happen. Predictably, the Colonel Blimps among his countrymen worried about any sophisticated weaponry getting to these “Reds” and sought to halt it. A better example of gun control cannot be imagined—but Orwell believed that the Home Guard should remain weaponized beyond the war so as to protect individual liberty. "

All it takes in modern Europe is for a malovalent group or individual to consolidate power. In the United States we have a backup. 

Yes, of course because if there was no 2nd ammendment then this guy would be sitting in his truck (that he was living out of) knitting a sweater right now. It is always the gun that magically turns people into monsters. Nice dodge there avoding my comment on recent terrorist attacks that did not involve guns ... why aren't we calling for knife control? Why aren't we banning alll cars? Afterall, they could be used to kill people right?

Give me a break ... and rebelling against a corrupt government? This is the same man that actively supported a politician that called for even more government control over every facet of American life including, ironically, guns. You are arguing he is rebelling against a government that became so hopelessly corrupt in under 6 months time? Somehow I don't think the authors of the 2nd ammendment believed that people should attempt to murder politicians because they didn't like the results of ONE election cycle. 

1.  Because the consumption of life from murder hoses keep eclipsing that of knives (might have something to do with their efficiency, lethality, and ranged effectiveness), so they hog most of the attention.
2.  Probably because the manufacturing, selling, ownership and operation of cars are subject to extreme regulations.  You're on to something here, though: perhaps murder hoses should be as thoroughly regulated.  I also note that the US Constitution includes no mention of the right to bear cars, yet the Big Bad Guv'ment never tried taking everyone's cars away (cue Twilight Zone theme).  
3.  www.Corrupt.af (scroll down) Dear Leader's regime certainly fits the description of a corrupt government.
4.  No, that is the NRA/Republican position (at least, considering their rhetoric on the subject and the state of corruption in Dear Leader's regime, anyway.  Internal consistency FTW).  
5.  I had no idea that corruption/tyranny requires a certain amount of time to manifest.  The 2nd A., NRA and Republican Party certainly never outlined a formal time frame. 
6.  Did they mention how many election cycles must pass before the 2nd A. is a lawful reason for bearing arms against a corrupt/unlawful/tyrannical government?  Or how much time must pass?  The 2nd A. doesn't mention any sort of time frame.

You didn't say "world consensus" you said  "It's like the world has achieved a consensus on the matter"  Too bad everyone wasn't as intelectually honest as you

Democrats doing what they do best. Throwing a hissy fit.

Indeed; it may be expecting a bit much from people to use quotations properly.  You seem to have the hang of it, though.  Good on you!