Regardless of this, the fact that The Bill of Rights has provided citizens with a degree of basic rights is an excellent argument for its favor. Who cares if it is contradictory? All that matters is that judges who interpret it do it in a fashion that allows some degree of liberty for its subjects.

My point is simple. Two hundred years ago, the most advanced weapons of the day could still be made in a well-equipped metal shop, provided you had the know-how. Today this is no longer the case. Modern weapons require massive infrastructure to build. Even an organized, well-armed militia is no match for stealth bombers, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. If militias are no longer capable of protecting a country from tyrannical leaders, there’s no point in arming militias, is there?

I know lots of gun-toting rednecks. I don’t know any highly-trained, well-organized militias. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but unless I see evidence to the contrary, I’ll continue to believe in what I’ve seen. Similarly, if any country invaded a nuclear-capable nation, they would naturally expect a nuclear retaliation. That’s why I say it’s inconceivable. What on Earth makes you think that if some country invaded the US, President Numbnuts would hesitate to nuke ‘em?

“There is no evidence that more guns reduces crime.”

Nor is there evidence that they contribute.

“Rednecks with guns do not and cannot protect themselves against a tyrannical government.”

That statement effectively means nothing. The word “redneck” is injected into the statement in a purely pejorative manner. The statement truly implies: “Gun owners are just incompetent rednecks who could never stand up to a real army.” It does not acknowledge the fact that a “well regulated militia” is not a synonym for “incompetent rednecks” running around with guns. The statement seems to parallel that of English military generals who saw American revolutionaries as “petty provincials” who could not stand up to the discipline and competence of a European army. This proved to be a most fatal assumption.

“There is no reason to believe that any country with a nuclear arsenal could be invaded without leading directly to a full-on nuclear war.”

There are actually various reasons to believe this. There are various to reasons to believe the contrary as well. This statement is nil, just like most of your other conjecture.

“Of course, a militia is no longer necessary to national security in the United States. ”

Is that comment supposed to be taken seriously? How does the fact that the government has superior weapons change the fact that a militia is needed to ensure that the government does not become tyrannical? I agree with you that the constitution does need to be REVISED, or in fact another amendment be added to it. When the founding fathers wrote that amendment governments did not have F22s and ICBMs; in our founding fathers’ time a rifle and an organized militia were enough to combat tyrants. A highly organized civilian militia with better weaponry needs to be established.

@Grant, Different people define ‘right’ differently. Defining rights as anything not explicitly forbidden is not particularly helpful for moral reasoning. I think the amendment you quote simply indicates that the Bill of Rights is not meant as a comprehensive list.

@Francois,

“A right is a moral justification to use force in order to protect something.” – what dictionary did you get this from? I have never seen ‘right’ defined this way.

@Dude,

Though I understand your frustration, anarchy also has negative consequences

@Reader and @Cody,

Rednecks with guns do not and cannot protect themselves against a tyrannical government. One F15 would provide clear military superiority over all of the private militias in the United States combined. You can’t fight a modern military with weapons that can be constructed without significant infrastructure.

There is no evidence that more guns reduces crime.

There is no reason to believe that any country with a nuclear arsenal could be invaded without leading directly to a full-on nuclear war.

@Tom

I have no problem with you hurting yourself if you so choose. I have a problem with you hurting others.

@fu,

Very sophisticated comment on national policy.

Ever hear someone claim they have the right to smoke?

They should have the right to smoke. It’s their body, and they can do what they want with it.

To hurt themselves?

Hell yeah!

To eat badly?

Same thing. The government can’t regulate what you eat.

To be rude?

Yeah, you do have the right to be rude. It’s part of freedom of speech.