Don't we want the bottom to be fired?

I was reading this article discussing the nuances of the illegal batted ball in the Seahawks-Lions game. When talking about referee performance, it calls out that a section of the refs will be graded as tier three. Two consecutive years in tier three makes a ref a candidate to be fired.

Companies routinely get flak for cycling out their poorest performers. However, wouldn't you, as a consumer of a product, want that company to strive for stronger and stronger employees? We accept (even demand!) this in sports. Poor players need to go. Bad refs need to go. Bad coaches need to go. Why? Because we feel the resulting product is diminished.

If I'm going to buy a car from GM or ride a plane made by Boeing or use software made by Microsoft, shouldn't I want them to use the best people they can find to make those things? Shouldn't I accept (even demand!) that they do so?

The counterargument is usually of the form "what if everyone is an all-star?" or at least "what if everyone is really good?". I counter that there's rarely an absolute definition of good. Being able to, say, assemble 10 cars in a day is objective, but meaningless. Can anyone do that? Can more people than I would ever hire do 20 cars in a day? Hiring guidelines such as these come about by observing relative skill levels. If we hire better and better people, maybe we don't need to make more cars but we can put more effort into other related aspects of assembly. Overall, better workers should create a better product.

Going back to the NFL example, these players, coaches and refs are amongst the absolutely very best in the world, but we still say they suck, they should be fired, etc. Why do we suddenly believe that these same rules don't or shouldn't apply in "real life"?
 

If my parents had guns

My parents were born in 1944 and 1952, in Hungary. For those not familiar, Hungary was emerging, destroyed, out of WW2 and was pretty much immediately taken under Soviet control. The population was progressively subdued and thrust into a communist system. Frustrations peaked in 1956 when a brief revolution was attempted. Predictably, the overpowering might of the Soviet occupying forces crushed it in short order. People who were protesting peacefully were shot. Anyone attributed with leadership roles was executed. One can argue that the revolution was short and relatively few people died only because the population did not have guns. The spirit to fight was there. The weaponry did not.

So what if my parents (or really, my grandparents) and their friends had guns? Lots and lots of guns? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here right now. In case it's not clear, because they wouldn't have lived through 1956. While Freddie Mercury wondered out loud if he'd have preferred not to have been born at all, I prefer existing.

The point here is that supporting guns because the 2nd amendment says so seems an outdated stance. First, we made that rule for ourselves and it can be changed. It's not a commandment to Moses. Second, it was written to allow states to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. At the time of writing, the weapons playing field was relatively level. The army came with guns and some cannons. The population defended itself with similar guns (though probably no cannons). Today the population has guns whereas the army has grenades, bombs, tanks, cannons, airplanes, night-vision,  body armor, ... Defending ourselves from an organized, modern army is just not a thing that will happen.