Well, wachtwoord has a point though:
There isn't a 2nd amendment equivalent in most countries around the world, where I live that is only formulated as a grant not a right, and only granted as a relic of reformation period of monarchy in my county, although still valid. And in some countries there is nothing, except that mocking UN-declaration.
The principle behind the US 2nd amendment is a result of enlightened evolution of government. An acknowledgement by the intellectual elite (arguably
) that governments have and will devolve and operate to the detriment of society and at that point there are likely no options to effect positive governmental change other than by force.
If one recalls the turmoil in Europe a few hundred years ago of wholesale dissolution of parliaments and back and forth struggle for complete and absolute power by monarchies it's no surprise that the profound right for the people to bear arms, or more pointedly for the common people to pose a real threat to their own government, is not something found in the old world.
Now, if one thinks that stupid or disturbed people having guns and shooting up movie theaters is scary consider that in today's world the US citizen, with the right to bear basic weaponry, possesses only a fraction of the force leverage against their government's technologically advanced war making and intelligence capability. The teeth of the 2nd amendment, the counterbalance to the worst of government dysfunction, is largely gone. No first world government has a rational reason to fear successful revolt.
What do you think the Syrian's chances would be if Syria was a first world country with commensurate war making and intelligence capability?