farson135:
No, that is an arm as they considered it.

What they said, not what you added in.

farson135:

Or will you recognize that you're just assuming you know what they meant without much other than your own preconceptions?

Assuming? Can you show that they meant something else?

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

farson135:

Strazdas:
Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are combining two separate ideas. The fact that the Second Amendment exists is good enough for me. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because we believe that the supreme law of the land should be followed does not mean that we do not think it can be changed.

So in your first paragraph you are claiming that you consider that law as impenetrable "because it exists" and therefore it is a supreme law.
and in second one you say that it can be changed.

so which is it?

Strazdas:

farson135:

Strazdas:
Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are combining two separate ideas. The fact that the Second Amendment exists is good enough for me. Why? BECAUSE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Just because we believe that the supreme law of the land should be followed does not mean that we do not think it can be changed.

So in your first paragraph you are claiming that you consider that law as impenetrable "because it exists" and therefore it is a supreme law.
and in second one you say that it can be changed.

so which is it?

It is not contradictory, legally as the constitution is written.

The constitution can be amended. Not just the addiction of new rights, but the taking of them as well (such as the 18th amendment) and can override previous amendments (such as the 21st). The government cannot simple ban guns (under current rulings on the meaning of the second amendment, as per DC v Heller) through legislation. It can, however, amend the constitution to ban guns, which is much harder than simply passing a bill (you need to get a super majority of both houses in Congress AND two thirds of the states to vote for a new amendment). The law of the land is not unchangable, it is just very difficult to do so.

taciturnCandid:

Xan Krieger:
In the event of problem in the US the soldiers won't know who is defending America and who supports the government till after the bullets start flying. It'd be a nightmare for them and it could only be hoped that many of them would do their duty to their country and join the people in the defense of liberty. Not like they could use those stupid drones, those things kill too many innocent people to be practical.

Multiple problems though.

First off, this kind of fighting will make a lot of innocent people die. Unless there is an organized army to combat the current one, then it will just mean innocents gets caught in crossfire after crossfire.

Not to mention that what some people might see as liberties being taken away might not be perceived that way by others. Our last civil war had sides for a reason.

War causes means of productions being destroyed. A civil war destroys the economy.

There are other ways to resolve things, why create a war to resolve it?

Its a dystopian failed state scenario. The amendment was meant to guard against that. You can't exactly oppress a populace that can defend itself.

Also: Stop citing tentherism. I already told you once before that taking the constitution as 100% literal was a bad idea, and we dropped that idea centuries ago.

Seanchaidh:
What they said, not what you added in.

I added nothing.

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

And that proves what, aside from the fact that I was correct?

Strazdas:
So in your first paragraph you are claiming that you consider that law as impenetrable "because it exists" and therefore it is a supreme law.

and in second one you say that it can be changed.

so which is it?

Being the supreme law of the land in no way shape or form connotes the idea that a law cannot be changed.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
What they said, not what you added in.

I added nothing.

http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

And that proves what, aside from the fact that I was correct?

"Arms" means any arms, and that's clear from the usage of the founders. And you should say other than the fact you are wrong.

farson135:
Being the supreme law of the land in no way shape or form connotes the idea that a law cannot be changed.

Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Petition, Assembly, Unreasonable Search and Seizure (warrants), Due Process of Law, Fair Trial, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Slavery Abolished, Voting, Women's Suffrage, Poll Taxes...

Like the right to keep and bear arms, these too are part of America's supreme law of the land. I agree with you that we can change our Constitution, but are you prepared to say any of the above are open to debate? Are there no unalienable rights (chief among them being life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

We don't ban parts of speech; we can restrict how it is used.

Society demands decorum, not oppression of all people despite it and to spite a few who disrupt it.

Xan Krieger:
In the event of problem in the US the soldiers won't know who is defending America and who supports the government till after the bullets start flying. It'd be a nightmare for them and it could only be hoped that many of them would do their duty to their country and join the people in the defense of liberty. Not like they could use those stupid drones, those things kill too many innocent people to be practical.

How do you determine which side is right though? Let's say the president becomes a carbon copy of Hitler (since we all know his story), Hitler brought in massive infringements to the German people and they didn't care, they loved him; he managed to turn Germany around (in their eyes) after the humiliation of WW1 and made Germany great again, they didn't realise what he actually stood for until far too late.

And the military didn't need to do much to stop his opponents, often the civilians would do it for them. A new oppressive government isn't going to take over with zero support and just the military, there will be an overwhelming support base and most dissent will be dealt with inside the civilian population with no military intervention whatsoever.

Lets say some people realise what's happening and try to tell people, will they be believed? Consider:

Do people think either of these men were the reincarnation of Hitler? No of course not, we think the people that made these are idiots, the same would be true (even more so) for our President Hitler.

Telling people doesn't work so our dissenters move into violence, they start a guerilla war against the US law enforcement and military. They would be labelled the new Taliban in less than 30 minutes - remember this is a super president, everyone from Libertarians to Socialists love this guy, he'd make the hype of Obama 08 look like a pile of crap.

Now the whole country is against the dissenters, everybody rats them out to the police, the military gets full support and even civilians are forming militias to go hunt down these traitors.

A corrupt military/government wouldn't need to worry about the military deserting to join the rebels, they'd have to worry about finding enough uniforms for all the people volunteering for the 'peoples army'.

I never get how people think a corrupt government will somehow rise in a vacuum. Every corrupt government in history has risen on the backs of massive support from the public, by the time their true motives are revealed they are already supported by everyone and it wouldn't matter.

Seanchaidh:
"Arms" means any arms, and that's clear from the usage of the founders. And you should say other than the fact you are wrong.

You think tautology will help your case? Show me where what I said is wrong.

AgedGrunt:
Like the right to keep and bear arms, these too are part of America's supreme law of the land. I agree with you that we can change our Constitution, but are you prepared to say any of the above are open to debate?

All of the above are open to debate. As it should be. Whether we should debate them is another matter.

Are there no unalienable rights (chief among them being life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)?

No. None. We Americans have proven that in spades. The government takes away life and liberty from its citizens practically without recourse.

Strazdas:

Its not so much that i have a problem with not everyone being anti guns but that there are people who claim we can never regulate guns simply because of second amendment. according to them that is the ONLY argument against it and this is enough for them. To them constitution is unchangeable gods law and this is where the problem stems from.

You are making a straw man, and worse, repeating the strawman that I answered already. No, there are not an appreciable number of people who think that the constitution is unchangeable. And the few nutbags who do are too politically marginalized to have any effect. So the problem does not "stem" from this at all. It stems from the fact that well over half the adults in the US own a gun. Virtually everyone who does not live on the coasts or in Illinois either has a gun or is related to someone who does. THAT is what your "problem" stems from. Hunting is a huge pastime, though as I said earlier, the 2A has nothing to do with it, you notice that anti-gun politicians are always careful to say that they don't want people's hunting guns. It's political suicide to go after hunting, unless one represents DC or San Francisco. Sport shooting is a huge pastime. But most of all, Americans own guns for personal and home defense. One can argue the effectiveness of this, but you can't argue the phenomenon. People support the 2A not because they blindly support everything the founders did (see my earlier comment on the 3/5ths compromise), but because they still like their guns, and the 2A supports that. I've never, ever heard a gun-right supporter claim that the constitution cannot be amended. I've heard them say that even if the 2A is amended out, self defense is a basic right and they aren't bound by it. Gun supporters, myself included, support the second amendment for the same reason we support the First. Because it was a good idea two hundred years ago, and it still is. The founders were not infallible, no one thinks that. Some were very, very smart. We don't argue that the constitution can never be changed, we argue that this part of it should not be changed. Convince three quarters of the people that we're wrong, and you're home free.

If the Second Amendment doesn't allow for AR-15s, AK-47s, etc.(Semiautomatic rifles or semiautomatic versions of those rifles), then the First Amendment doesn't cover any religion besides Christianity.
This is how I view and interpret the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary the security of a free state"
A civilian paramilitary force is allowed but must be well trained and documented encase of an attack on the U.S.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Citizens have a right to own and carry weapons and this cannot be violated.