The Second Amendment is not being properly used

Originally posted by Wolf321
That entire concept is entirely backwards.

Its not since the Consitution didnt exist at the time of our insurrection. They were still under the crown and therefore had to take actions to gain weapons in order to fight.

Originally posted by Wolf321
When you want something to be broad, you keep it simple and open.

And when you want some to be understood and not open for interpretation you make it specific to cover all bases.

Think of it like this. If someone says to you, "Don't say a word." Do you require them to run through a list of every conceivable word they don't want you to say? Any normal, sane, logical person would understand that to be ALL and ANY words. Making something broad is done intentionally so its flexible with the passage of time and changes in society and technology.

Originally posted by Wolf321
They didn't need to specify each and every weapon of warfare because ARMS is ALL ENCOMPASSING.

Again the Supreme Court is telling you that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You have stated numerous times now that the 2nd is based on oppression and tyranny. I am telling you it was more than just that. Your argument for the 2nd is solely based on defending agsint the government, when in fact it says nothing of the sort.

Let me quote myself, since you clearly missed it. "Yes, exactly. IT WAS THE DRIVING FACTOR, but is not the sole one. " My argument is not solely based on defending against tyranny.

The way to keep a Republic is by peoples participation in it. The use of weapons against the government is an extreme last resort.

Which I have validated through this entire discussion and we have never been in disagreement on that.

At least you finally got to this point. Your argument is based on that one issue - protection from the government.

How do you keep coming to that conclusion when I have said almost every single time, that the 2A is not solely for defense against the government. It is the MAIN reason, but also includes self defense and defense against foreign aggression.

I guess my lack of specifying every little issue (like the 2A doesn't specify every arm) is what confused you.

As I pointed out numerous times now travel within and across state lines is protected - The method of travel is not.

Your travel analogy is not the same. To more accurately match the regulations imposed against the 2A, we should say that travel between states is protected, but only on foot or by horse, yet the government can use cars, trains and planes.

Your argument is based one one aspect that you are fixated on - protection against the government via weapons / guns / missiles / arms / whatever you wish to call it and conflict. You are ignoring the fact the vote was the bigest defense the founders built into the constitution.

My argument is that defense against tyranny is the MAIN reason for the 2A. If you take away the ability to utilize the 2A in its main purpose, then you only nominally have the right.

I have never said the use of arms should come lightly or before trying to secure liberty via voting and representation. I don't know why you keep eluding to that.

Because if it ever came to the point of armed revolt it means the citizens failed to uphold their duty - A Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Not necessarily so. The people can easily be mislead, or through negligence, vote themselves into despotism. Either way, it is their human right to be able to resist tyranny, despite its origins.

Originally posted by Wolf321
No. People were still in possession of cannons long after the revolutionary war.

Who? How many? Where?

Originally posted by Wolf321
We agree on this, but consider if that time were to come, the people have no means to resist. With the restrictions on arms now, the best people can hope for is individual self-defense from another individual only; most certainly NOT to resist tyranny.

The people do have the ability to resist. As I stated if we get to a point of armed revolt all sides, including the people, have failed each other.

Individual self defense.. again my point. Its not your responsibility to protect the rights of everyone else - just your own.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Yes, the same supreme court that is part of the federal government. Here I am making an argument that the federal government can erode, restrict and abuse rights, namely the 2A, and you say that federal government says they aren't doing that.

Nothing has been restricted. You can still purchase and bear arms. Again just because you dont agree with their answer doesnt mean rights are being eroded.

Originally posted by Wolf321
And in all those cases they have only restricted the rights when in violation of another rights. With the 2A, they restrict it despite the lack of another's rights being violated.

edit on 16-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

Incorrect.. Up until 2008 / 2010 there was ambiguity in who the 2nd applied to. Those 2 rulings officaly applied the 2A to the individual. I would say they expanded / protected the right.

In Arizona vs. Gant the Supreme Court further restricted law enforcements ability to search a motor vehicle during a search incident to arrest.
The courts struck down 1021/1022 provisions of the NDAA.

So no the courts are not stripping away rights.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Making something broad is done intentionally so its flexible with the passage of time and changes in society and technology.

Flexible as in open, not as in restrictive. The founders whole reason for fighting and establishing a new nation was to further freedom. The creation of the constitution and bill of rights was explicitly to ENSURE the natural rights were not restricted by the government.

Anytime a law serves to restrict freedom, specifically freedom that does not violate the rights of others, is counter to the purpose and intentions of the founders and the constitution.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Let me quote myself, since you clearly missed it. "Yes, exactly. IT WAS THE DRIVING FACTOR, but is not the sole one. " My argument is not solely based on defending against tyranny.

Go back and read your posts and you will see what I am referring to. Your entire argument, still, revolves around a persons ability to defend themselves from the government while ignoring everything else surrounding it, including Supreme Court decisions.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Which I have validated through this entire discussion and we have never been in disagreement on that.

While still arguing why you think you should have access to all items the military / government does because of tyranny.

Originally posted by Wolf321
How do you keep coming to that conclusion when I have said almost every single time, that the 2A is not solely for defense against the government. It is the MAIN reason, but also includes self defense and defense against foreign aggression.

Again go back and read your posts and you will see your theme is tyranny and the government.

Originally posted by Wolf321
I guess my lack of specifying every little issue (like the 2A doesn't specify every arm) is what confused you.

There is no reason for you to act like a jerk dude. Dont make it personal. If thats the route you are going to go let me know now so I can move on from this conversation / thread.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Your travel analogy is not the same. To more accurately match the regulations imposed against the 2A, we should say that travel between states is protected, but only on foot or by horse, yet the government can use cars, trains and planes.

It is the same... Just like there are various methods of travel there are various types of guns. Some of those methods of travel have restrictions, just like guns.

Originally posted by Wolf321
My argument is that defense against tyranny is the MAIN reason for the 2A. If you take away the ability to utilize the 2A in its main purpose, then you only nominally have the right.

Yet there is nothing that gurantees you the right to have the same items as the government.

Originally posted by Wolf321
I have never said the use of arms should come lightly or before trying to secure liberty via voting and representation. I don't know why you keep eluding to that.

Again go back and read your posts. It is present in your argument on this topic.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Not necessarily so. The people can easily be mislead, or through negligence, vote themselves into despotism. Either way, it is their human right to be able to resist tyranny, despite its origins.

And they have access to items that will assist them if it comes to that. However it still does not change the fact the 2A does not grant citizens the same items as the military. It does not change the fact the Supreme Court has addressed tis issue many times over the years and have been consistent in their rulings.

Again I will point out that in your above post you are once again coming back to gocernment tyranny to make your argument.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Flexible as in open, not as in restrictive.

Flexible as in it works for this instance but wont for that instance.
Flexible as in the right to own and bear arms while not being able to own others.
Flexible as in what is needed now might not be compaitble down the road.

Hence living document....

Originally posted by Wolf321
The founders whole reason for fighting and establishing a new nation was to further freedom. The creation of the constitution and bill of rights was explicitly to ENSURE the natural rights were not restricted by the government.

They also understood the concept that what they did then might not be applicable down the road. Hence framework for a government. Hence protections of certain rights but not absolute.

Originally posted by Wolf321
Anytime a law serves to restrict freedom, specifically freedom that does not violate the rights of others, is counter to the purpose and intentions of the founders and the constitution.

Again you are back to tyranny....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Who? How many? Where?

One example of post revolutionary war private cannon ownership is John Sutter. He was a bit of a collector, and even used his cannons in the Californian rebellion.

Even though most men kept muskets in their own homes, a provincial congress, led by John Hancock, realized that more powerful weapons would be needed to fight the well-equipped British army. For this purpose, they established caches of "arms" in several towns throughout the Colonies. The Revolutionary War started when General Gage tried to confiscate the arms, including cannon, being secretly stored in Concord. Presumably the cannon were either donated by rich patriots (like Hancock) or collectively purchased/manufactured by the local militia groups.

The people do have the ability to resist.

How? How can people, armed only with semi-auto rifles and pistols only resist a standing army with automatic weapons, grenades, tanks, jets, helicopters, missiles, drones, sound and heat rays etc?

You can still purchase and bear arms. Again just because you dont agree with their answer doesnt mean rights are being eroded.

So if the next "Assault Weapons Ban" were to include all firearms that hold or fire more than one cartridge, or restricted the use of weapons that utilize explosives to military or law enforcement, that would be ok because we could still as civilians use slingshots.

So no the courts are not stripping away rights.

The courts have allowed for warrantless wiretaps, that the federal government can prevent an individual from growing their own food because in doing so they are not buying food thus affecting interstate commerce, etc. Yes, the courts have on many occasions upheld the stripping away of our rights by the federal government.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
They also understood the concept that what they did then might not be applicable down the road. Hence framework for a government. Hence protections of certain rights but not absolute.

Every educated person understands that the founders would never consider a right not applicable down the road. The whole Bill of Rights exists not to establish the rights, but recognize that they exist naturally and codify it to ensure the government doesn't restrict it.

The rights ARE ABSOLUTE, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other.

Again you are back to tyranny....

Yes, because that is the MAIN component of the 2A. You don't complain about a flat tire if the car is missing an engine.

Originally posted by Wolf321

So if the next "Assault Weapons Ban" were to include all firearms that hold or fire more than one cartridge, or restricted the use of weapons that utilize explosives to military or law enforcement, that would be ok because we could still as civilians use slingshots.

The 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms. As Wolf has stated, this right, was intended to mean the right to defend ourselves.
The Government is not, by the Constitution allowed to prohibit the development of an RC controlled Helio, that has a RPG, Rifle, Shotgun, W/E for the sole purpose of using it as a weapon, this is a right as laid out in the Constitution. Hence, the OP.

That is the idea behind the amendment, to let the people check governement by power of force, and being able to fight back if it comes to force.