Razark - where did anyone say anything about stealing?

Or are you talking about going to the local armory? Because if so, how can it be stealing when its my money - aka taxes - that paid for that tank, LAW, Stryker, Rifle, MRE, and everything else? If I paid for it - I have a claim to it. Currently, the citizenry entrusts the care of such items to the military, through the government. Should the government unlawfully turn against its society, then it abrogates that trust and the citizenry is well within its legal rights to remove such equipment from an illegally acting government.

The mistake your making is that you think the citizens answer to the government. Not in this country. The government answers to the people. It may not seem that way - but that is why you have such a big civilian push to reassert the rights we are guaranteed under our Constitution.

Please, I would like to see a video of you asserting that claim. It would be most interesting.

The intent of the Second Amendment was that the citizens would not entrust the custody and use of the weapons to the government. They would be in the hands of the citizens themselves. The citizens wouldn't have to go get them from the government when it started getting out of line, the government would be too afraid to step out of line, because the citizens ALREADY HAD the means to rise up and overthrow the government.

But that's not the way it is. You are not allowed to keep certain types of weapons. And frankly, there is a real need to keep certain types of weapons from people. Think about some of the people you know. I'm sure you can think of someone nearby that doesn't need access to a machine gun. How about the people driving on the freeway? Would you trust most of them driving a tank? Imagine drive-by shootings with anti-tank rockets.

The Second Amendment is obsolete for it's intended purpose. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a completely different discussion.

I would never do so unless the government had created the absolute need for it. Thankfully, it hasn't, and I hope and pray that such a day never comes. If it ever did so, I am sorry but I wouldn't have the time, energy or focus needed to videotape it and put it up on youtube, since I would be a bit busy fighting for the freedom of this country. I am sure you will understand.

If this was the case, why is it that elements of the body politic, from the local levels, to the state, and on to the federal level, feel a need to get rid of the Second Amendment? The reality is that an armed populace means that government cannot do whatever it wants without risk. That is why you have many politicians at every level that want to remove that risk. In the case before the Court, they got it right in noting that the American citizenry has the RIGHT to retain its ability to control government, via an armed populace.

As for the issue of tanks in civilian hands, etc. - note that I have not advocated that military hardware be in the hands of civilians. Unless an armed uprising of the people is necessary, then it shouldn't be. Right now, its not, and thus the people should not have unfettered access. Should the actions of the government change that situation, then the NEED for such equipment in the hands of the populace would change as well.

As I said, we entrust such things to a legally operating government. As long as it stays within the parameters set for it by law and the people (not just one or the other) - then things should stay that way. It is only as a last resort in defense of our freedom that force by the populace becomes an acceptable alternative.

Exactly. We've done it before, just ask the British.

I'm always fascinated by discussions of Rights. Some people seem to think a right is something granted by the government. It's not. Of course our natural rights are limited by the existence of others around us, but they are natural rights nonetheless.

The comment that the Second Amendment is about the overthrow of the government is true, but the point about defense against robbery and hunting is not. I've used that distinction myself when making the point about why it was written, but the fact is that everyone has a natural right to defend their family by any means available, and everyone has a right to hunt their own food. These rights are restricted by mutual agreement. Government imposition by law is an expression and acknowledgement of that agreement.

I don't have a right to kill my neighbor's dog for my supper, because it infringes his right to ownership of said dog. I have given up my right to hunt legitimate food animals except in the proper season because it is to our benefit to protect those animals as much as possible, and there is ample food available commercially so I won't starve by not hunting. I can complain about certain laws, but we create them to protect all of us, and we can change them through legal means or we can break them and take our chances.

The Anti-Federalists refused to accept the Constitution unless it contained a Bill Of Rights, and they won their fight. They believed that all rights belonged to the people and none to the government, which is created by and for the people. We make laws to protect ourselves from each other, but it is easy to go beyond that concept. Just look at helmet and seatbelt laws. But the Bill Of Rights is there to guarantee our protection against encroachment - any encroachment - by the government. James Madison originally opposed the Bill Of Rights for that very reason. He believed that if they made a list of rights protected by the Constitution they would inevitably leave something out, and it would only be a matter of time before someone said "They didn't mention that one, so they must not have meant it!" Just look at the recent "Right to Privacy" arguments. That is why he made sure to include the Ninth Amendment.

Argue that the Constitution is outmoded if you like. The fact is that they really did want it to be flexible, hence the amendment process. Argue that the Second Amendment should be removed. That's your right. Try to get it changed or removed by Amendment. That could happen, but it's not very likely. The process was made to be difficult and slow for a reason. But remember, the basic idea is that ALL Rights belong to the people, and none to the government.

But the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to possess military hardware. Hence the fact that advancing technology has made it obsolete.

See this is where I think your wrong. The intent was to insure than the government always knew it must answer to the people - by allowing the people to maintain the last resort option of an overthrow or resistance by force.

What your doing is confusing the forest and the trees. Yes, at the time it was crafted, military and civilian hardware were basically the same. Time has changed that. Yet an armed populace, with handguns and rifles, still present a huge "threat" to government IF that government chooses to disregard the will of the governed.

You doubt that a "armed mob" using legally owned weapons can exert significant pressure on government to make that government listen?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislati..._tennessee.htm

Three years in a row an UNARMED protest stopped the Tennessee legislature from authorizing a state income tax..... Now if those lawmakers listen to a mass of unarmed civilians, how much more likely are they willing to listen to armed civilians that are clearly willing to both kill and die in defence of their liberties in opposition to a rogue government?

The citizenry doesn't need to fight government, it simply must show that it has the MEANS (standard civilian armaments being sufficient in the world we have today) and the WILL to do so, to hold the government in check. This is the purpose of the second amendment. It is not to insure that every citizen can have a tank. Which, by the way, if you can afford, you can get, though some key systems will be dismantled and removed. Also, in many instances, those key systems are replacable with lesser but still highly lethal options that can be "cobbled" together to do the job.

The Second Amendment is a guarantee to the people that they can maintain a credible deterrent to an oppressive government. It does not state how that deterrent is to be maintained other than the "right to bear arms". It does not say what arms they are. It has been the people, through the actions of government, that have decided (correctly in my view) that standard civilian firearms are generally sufficient. Your position confuses the "how" with the "why".

So because something's in the constitution, does that mean it's the right thing by definition?
Wouldn't that be the same thing as saying slavery is legal, because in the original constitution it was? That would mean the 13th amendment is as much against "your constitutional right" as disallowing firearms.

Because a constitutional right happened to be useful in the past, it doesn't mean it's some right that will always be useful and may not be changed.

The US Constitution can be ammended, and THAT is how changes (updates) are made.
Not via The Bench, nor by common legislation.

Excuse me but where in the original constitution did it ever say slavery was legal?

I agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others, and that is an interesting discussion to have. I just want to clarify one thing that seems to keep being misunderstood.

The intent of the Second, or of any Amendment, is not to 'allow' anything. The intent of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee pre-existing natural or 'God-given' rights from any interference by the government. The only 'allowing' to be done is what the Constitution 'allows' the government to do. The intent of the Constitution was to set up a form of government with certain powers and no others. The fact that that government has time and again been used for purposes the Founders never wanted is not an excuse to keep 'allowing' it to happen.

Again: All RIGHTs belong to the people, none to the government.

Until the 13th ammendment it also didn't say it was illegal. At the time of the original drafting slavery was legal and there are certainly implied references to slavery and the slave trade in the original constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a3.html#Q59
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

Implications are not the same thing as an outright statement of legalty. In any case the 13th certainly clarified that status and like the 2nd Amendment further amendments would be necessary to abrogate it.

Very true. But the Constitution was not meant to be the law of the land, just the handbook for the Federal Government. Slavery was indeed a part of the debates, and the compromise that was reached came about because at that time the Fed was not meant to interfere with the States and certain States refused to join if slavery was outlawed, and also if they didn't get certain concessions in the "representation" department.

So you're right in that slavery was legal. It is accepted by the Constitution because that document wasn't meant to tell the states what to do.

Just clearing things up a little.