In the actual US it's quite different... you hear people complain about the NSA and things like that on TV like... every single day.   

You find lots of new disturbing stuff, tons of people upset.

http://www.businessinsider.com/report-obama-nsa-can-exploit-bugs-like-heart-bleed-for-national-security-purposes-2014-4

The main differnce is, that the right to bear arms is a physical one, while the NSA's abuses aren't.

So it's easy to say... walk somewhere with a gun with a group of people... and hard to... I'm not even sure what the equilvent would be.

Not if you read the actual thread or did any research.  He's the only rancher left, specifically because the federal governmnet cut cattle grazing amounts to a level that made commercial ranching impossible to anybody who followed the law.

All in defense of a desert tortoise who'se habitat they were selling away hand over fist to greedy housing developers.

Were the rancher and president of different political affiliations I imagine this would be seen as a case of the government ruining the enviorment by neoliberalism cronism.

Think of the purpose of those amendments. Each one serves a certain purpose and has always served that purpose. Typically that purpose is to protect the base rights of citizens. Only a few have actually changed in a noticable way to the point where they may need to be looked at. There is no reason to re-examine freedom of religion or the right of people to peacefully assemble or the 3-7 amendments or the 9-10 amendments.

This leaves a few things open for discussion:
-Freedom of the Press
-Right to Bear Arms
-8th Amendment

The press has changed and very much so as you have stated. Things are no longer only print media and information is much more widespread than before. How should this affect the press? Well the purpose of this part of the first amendment was to eliminate government censorship of the media and allow them to print whatever stories they want. Therefore, these rights should be protected. However, as someone said above, knowingly printing false stories is something that I believe a dialogue should be opened up about. While it is technically within the press' rights to print false stories, I think this is something that should be discussed as I believe it is easy to see why this could harm the country. I am not saying that we should throw laws in right now, I am just saying it should be discussed, all parties should make their case, and an informed democratic consensus should be reached.

The 8th Amendment is very loosely worded and for that reason, multiple supreme court cases were conducted on the issue to set a more specific grounds for this amendment. More concrete guidelines were necessary and therefore more concrete guidelines were implemented.

Like how the press has changed, so has weapons technology. "Arms" have changed considerably from the time this amendment was implemented and for that reason, I believe that it should be reevaluated. The definition of "Arms" is as follows: "A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." Do you honestly believe that there should be no restrictions to these in the USA? In fact, there are already plenty of restrictions as to which specific arms are allowed and which are not. If you choose to take the amendment at its base worth as you claim, then are we not already infringing on American's rights by not allowing them to possess any and all forms of weaponry?
Lets go back to the purpose of this amendment, which is actually stated in the amendment: "A well regulated Militia" in addition to self protection. Okay, so what weapons should a militia have in order to fulfill its purpose? Well what is a militia's purpose? According to the definitions the United States gives, a Militia is both the state's "Army" (which possesses weapons for a variety of purposes and is not linked to personal freedoms), as well as the reserves which is simply every able bodied man of a certain age. What is the purpose of the latter? To serve in the case of a draft, so they do not need weapons for personal means.
The second purpose which I stated is self protection. Under any normal circumstances, a light firearm should be acceptable for protection. This is of course up for debate, but barring very extreme and unheard of circumstances heavy weapons are unneccesary. Therefore, to hold true to the purpose of the amendment, as well as maintain a maximum level of security alongside a maximum level of freedom, restrictions should be put in place to regulate what weapons are acceptable.

Really, you guys make it sound that if a full blown civil war pops up it would be difficult to get guns without the Second Amendment.

If shit hits the fan, you can find guns. They'll find their way to the people in the end.

But having guns so freely available in peace time promotes nothing but violence.

switzerland? Did you bother to look up if what you said is factual or are you going by feelings?

No offense but that is completely wrong.  A Miltia basically meant, everybody, and to act when they needed to, not when drafted.

Just how seperation of Church and state isn't actually in the constituion but inferred by the Jefferson Letters we can see the meaning of those words in the statements of the founding fathers, and the 2nd ammendments writers.  (Thomas Jefferson and George Mason)

Or as Jerfferson put it

On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

Etc.  Basically the founding fathers totally would want people walking around with tanks and fighter jets and shit if they could afford them.  This was due to the founding fathers absolute disdain for standing armies, like the US army.  They thought standing armies were a nessisary evil that needed to be very small and only for immediate self defense purposes.  Due to ancient history involving the manga carta i'm not going to bore you with.

Essentially, the US was supposed to be an isolationist state that no government including it's own would try and take over, because the entire populace would be armed to the teeth, trained and an absolute pain in the ass to fight.

Basically a super hyped up version of the various "insurgents" the US fights in foreign countries today.   Were the founding fathers alive today, the US army would be shown as the EXACT reason why the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed on any level.

Of course, outside some libretarians you don't exactly see a huge anti-army sentiment combined with a pro 2nd ammendment stance.

 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

A tyrannical government who could blow them the fuck away, swiftly and with extreme prejudice if they so chose.

Or basically as a TL:DR

The Second amendment was supposed to ensure that


US Population > US army

in a fire fight.


This changed after the US got it's ass kicked a couple times by indians and the British, leading to a larger and larger standing government army.

Then after the US got it's ass kicked by it's own citizens when it tried to infringe on their rights... it slowly took away the right to bear arms from it's citizens.

You do realize this hurts and not helps your general arguement right?  The founding fathers would totally want the US Army to basically not exist, and have average people rolling around with tanks in their backyards.

Moreover it's why the whole "free militia to protect FREEDOM!" part of the second amendment is silly. The crime prevention people have facts to back them up, the militia folks, not so much.

If the army fails to put down an armed rebellion of US citizens, it will be because the army itself refuses to do so (which happens a decent amount in dictatorships anyway. It's why the August Coup failed in the end of the Soviet Union: the Army refused to kill the Moscow protestors of the coup). And in that case, it is likely that the reason the army backs off is because the rebels have enough moral gravity to not merit being gunned down, but it is the moral standing of the rebels' cause, and not the mere fact that they are armed, which could force the state to back off.

It is equally paranoid to assume that it will ever reach the point where we would need such a rebellion in the first place. It's not entirely outside the realm of possibility, yes, but so far out there that, if we ever reach that point, we'll likely have long since disposed of the second amendment anyway (and like burning phoenix said, regardless of the laws, people will find guns if they really need them, hence the basis of the arguments against gun control. That cuts both ways: if a rebellion really needed arms, a way would be found).

The power fantasies of the militia men are just that: rank delusions. Victories against tyranny are won in the court of public opinion, and not by snipers hiding out in the hills picking off G-men one at a time. Ironically, it's one of the ways in which the fringe right mirrors the fringe left, as the militia wingnut fantasies match the fantasies of left-wing "professional revolutionaries", of dedicated guerillas such as Kim, Mao, or Ho Chi Minh.