[hosepipe]

[ I'll go for the legislative answer provided for in the Constitution by the founders myself. ]

I see.. So then the 2nd amendment is NOT provided to make revolution LEGAL.. The 2nd must be so that we can have a RIGHT to HUNT and have target practice and to defend ourselves from the kids of the people thats taken our government over..

First you become socialists THEN you become FRANCE.. all done very legally..
Frenchmen are also cowards.. arrogant pedantic cowards..

[ancient_geezer]

I see.. So then the 2nd amendment is NOT provided to make revolution LEGAL..

Revolution is merely a high risk last ditch option and always will be. Legal has nothing to do with revolution nor does "legal" have anything to do with unalienable right to defense.

The 2nd must be so that we can have a RIGHT to HUNT and have target practice and to defend ourselves from the kids of the people thats taken our government over..

The second amendment provides for the defense of the citizen against any against any malevolent agency, at the citizen's own risk of course. In the nature of any unalienable right, one may exercise it at risk of failure nevertheless one my always exercise it.

Exercise revolution at your will, or not, as you may choose. Of course others are more likely to be the ones to determine the final result of the exercise of such an option. But then that is the essential feature of natural law. One is free to fail as well as succeed in an endeavor. Wisdom lay in choosing a course of success rather than one bound to failure.

First you become socialists THEN you become FRANCE.. all done very legally..
Frenchmen are also cowards.. arrogant pedantic cowards..

You have your gun, you have your choice, that is the nature of an unalienable right. Choose carefully grasshopper, the outcome of revolutions have little to do with the desires of cannonfodder.

[Seizure]

"So, then the 2nd amendment is not provided to make revolution legal..."

The 2nd amendment was established so that the citizens of our nation would have the means to defend themselves from government gone awry. Furthermore, a Founding Father did state that revolution is at times a necessity to maintain liberty.

I do not know who is arguing against you but if the implication is that firearms are not allowed for those purposes, then I would like to know what they are allowed for?

Whether or not the citizenry would ever have the courage to defend themselves against a government transformed to tyranny is another matter.

At the time of the rise of American Independence, there were many colonists who did not want to be bothered with liberty. They preferred to live under the thumb of an oppressive monarchy. It is a good thing for us that they were ignored.