the right to bear arms and how it can be used to defend from big government

[-CraZed-]

sundin13 said:

-CraZed- said:

sundin13 said:

Sounds to me like this guy was in the wrong and created a big fuss leading to the law enforcement backing out because it wasn't worth the effort. I don't see why I should be on his side...

Additionally, the right to bear arms means something very different now than when the constitution was drafted and I honestly don't see any need why people would need certain types of guns. Yeah, pistols and hunting gear is fine but any further than that and you are infringing on other people's freedom to protect your own.

So I'm guessing all the other amendments mean something different now as well? Search and seizure? Free speech rights?

Er, pardon? I apologize for pointing this out but you don't make much sense. There is a reason why the right to bear arms is so heavily debated and it is because the definition of "arms" has changed and it is uncertain where the line of "acceptable arms" lays. Please explain your point other than throwing out unrelated remarks. I am willing to discuss if you stay reasonable

Has not the definition of speech changed? Or what is private vs. not private? People always devolve the discussion to muskets and black powder (another poster above you) etc. so I guess free speech advocates are defending only the printing press then? Or search and seizure limited to just paper? These rights don't change. They never have. Only the people have changed and how they have chosen to apply them.

Every single one of the amendments are as they are. The verbage has not changed and they are not technically in any order of precedence or importance per se but if one was to conclude as much then the 2nd Amendment would be *gasp* second only to the right to free speech and the open practice of one's religion.