rainheart

(This post is long but I hope you take your time to read this)

Yet giving the state a monopoly of violence is even worse than giving the average unsophisticated citizen weapons. Given the history of things that led to the american revolution, the founding fathers must have recognized this. Also as samcol pointed out- due process is supposed to be guaranteed before you strip away liberties and even when you do it's supposed to be on an individual basis, not the entire population.

This is perhaps an unpredictable consequence of technological advance. While weapons with more higher destructive yields like machine guns, tanks, high-explosives, mechanized weaponry, and the all mighty WMDs are incredibly destructive, they cannot and must not be used to heighten state power to a critical level, past which the state can use these newly developed weapons to keep its opponents (and that includes its own citizens) in check, to avert any shift in power. While it may be reasonable to defend from foreign invaders, it is very twisted to protect yourself from your own citizens. Effectively, gun-control is de-facto security of the state from it's citizens, meant to undermine the constitution. This of course is impossible for the average person to accept, simple reason being because the average person is still too stupid to comprehend what makes a bad deal.

If what dksuddeth says is true about the $200 fee for automatic weapons ownership, then I believe the correct classification for this act is called "extortion".

I know it's hard for some people to accept this, but even justified acts can be wrong- and it's ESPECIALLY important to make sure that people who justify an action are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones, and that those 'right reasons' will actually work when applied. Given the current track record I can't say I sympathize too much with the forces behind gun-control.

The entire idea of disallowing citizens from owning automatic weapons for example is effectively to create a rift in firepower between two groups- imagine if the only thing a group had to defend itself with were slingshots and the other group had crossbows- guess who'd win? Now just add the fact that the group with crossbows is MUCH better organized, disciplined, and easily controlled by leaders than the group with slingshots.

Unfortunately it's quite possible (and not that far-fetched if you spend some time looking into it) that constitutional re-interpertation can easily be constitutional mis-interpertation, specifically designed as a part of a strategy to maintain power.

I would personally submit that the constitution and bill of rights were both intended to be vague AND precise- vague so that they can apply broadly, and precise so that there is no mistake about their intentions. However, the constitution was meant to be interperted in the same spirit as it was written- a free society built on the foundations of a government that serves its people, instead of people serving their government, or a government that serves business interests- which may not necessarily be true capitalistic ventures with the advent of public relations, perception management, and marketing industries.

Overall, the aim of the second amendment is to promote a free society in which the people have the means to resist their government if the government usurpation of power gets out of hand. An armed resistance is the last resort to a government that is out of sync with it's people, however this was the sort of contingency planning that the founding fathers apparently employed.

Although pragmatism is quite fitting in almost any endeavour, the logical conclusion of Mr. Stephenson's answer means that if I got together with a group of friends to infiltrate the government and have people in place to allow me to use hacking tools as protected under the second amendment, I have the right to do so. I don't believe this holds any water, and I don't believe saying it's a matter of pragmatism really says much.

What always strikes me as absurd about this analogy is you conclude that because you don't believe you should have a nuclear weapon, that it's okay to allow the state to have it. Do you trust yourself less than you trust the state? And if the state breaks your trust, what will you do to defend yourself after having given them all your power?

I like to call this little phenomenon as the fatal flaw of stalinism, whereby it was believed that because businesses which had an unequal degree of influence over the people of a nation, then it was okay to hand all that influence to a centralized government. Little did the people know- the government is run by other people, too, and those people are not necessarily better than you or me.

Popular views (read: corporate media approved ignorance) amongst the general population over the second amendment is another basic affirmation that language is the first and ultimate frontier to developing a totalitarian government. "Reinterpertation" is used as a means to deceive the average proletarian into believing that it is in their best interest to give up the means by which their freedoms are defended. A government does not keep it's people free- the people keep themselves free. And a government, though intended as an apparatus to entrench the freedom of all it's people, is historically used as an apparatus to bestow special rights to a privileged class.

You might think I'm an ass for quoting and disputing every single post I disagree with, but the truth is I get irritated to bits everytime I feel that someone is being cheated of their rights. You might think it's a bit pompous of me to believe that I am 100% right, but that's not actually true and I do make many mistakes, however I have thus far never ran into any conclusive and undisputable evidence that would allow me to believe that current interpertations of the second amendment and the current trajectory gun-control legislation is taking is the right way.

All that said, this is getting tiresome so I'm going to skip ahead to the last few segments of this discussion and see if I have anything more to contribute...

Now this is funny

If american society is anything like canadian society, then yes. The test is called university preperatory english class. Considering that every student hoping to enter university over here HAS to pass grade 12 university prep english, and considering that in english class (and I can attest to this from personal experience/disgust) the first things we were taught is not to question what we are given to read but rather try to prove WHY it was true (rather than if it actually was), and considering that english class is not actually english class as much as it is the study of literature, then you can see how there is already something of a "test" issued by the government where you cannot express free thought unless you pass it.