The difference isn't mere pedantry, but the difference between sovereignty and slavery. Free men are armed, and that alone is what keeps them from being slaves. The unarmed should understand this, but most do not, and foolishly trade their freedom for benevolent masters. When fickle masters decide to improve the return on their investment in slaves, they are no longer benevolent, but their stock has lost their power to defend themselves, which they gave up when they became dependent on masters they trusted to defend them.

Free men are armed because they know they alone are responsible to defend themselves, and that is the meaning of the Second Amendment, as SCOTUS explains in the Heller decision that points out the reason the Second Amendment exists is to ensure free men can kill tyrants and govern themselves, rather than be subjugated to oppression. Every man that will be free will be armed and willing to kill anyone that would force them to obey, because that is the difference between freedom and slavery. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has as it's purpose ensuring free men can murder corrupt politicians, destroy tyranny with extreme prejudice, and kill anyone and destroy anything that tries to prevent them from exercising their sole and inherent sovereign rights to live by rules they choose themselves.

Only dangerous men are good. The helpless are an evil that destroys society, leaving only wasted dreams, ruined lives, and hapless slaves in their wake.

Thanks!