...conservatives, including Justices Scalia and Thomas, are "originalists", meaning that the original intent of the founders should be determined whenever possible.  Don't be activists and change the meaning of the Second Amendment - hold up the four corners of the Constitution to your forehead like you are Carnac the Magnificent to divine what the founders intended.  Consider this 30 second PSA - is it what the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyPwJrPQO3g

...firearm technology in 1789?  Single shot, muzzle loading, extremely inaccurate, awkward and heavy, no barrel rifling, kills per minute: One (maybe).

Here's what you recently said to me, Willy:

"When was the last time you sat down, considered the argument from as many sides as possible, researched the evidence, and worked through your own reasoning with sound logic to come to a sound conclusion?"

Well Willy, did you consider the argument of the OP (intent of the founders in 1789)? NO!  Did you research the evidence (firearms used in 1789)? NO!  Did you use sound logic and come to a sound conclusion?  HELL NO!  You mixed apples and oranges and cited a red herring video.  Not very logical, are you?

Conservatives don't want a "living" Constitution.  They want it to be like the Bible - every word is holy, not subject to interpretation of our modern times.  Come on Willy, show me some sound logic and reach a sound conclusion explaining how your link was in any way relevant to what was occurring in 1789.

Just as easily have been for citizens to have the same weapons as the military/government to prevent tyrany and protect the actual meaning of the constitution?  

Madison made it very clear in Federalist #46 that an armed citizenry should have the same weapons as your standard army infantryman. Today, that would be a Beretta M9 (9mm semi-auto pistol) and a full auto M16. I'll settle for a 9mm pistol of my choice and a semi-auto AR-15.

The sole reason why we have a 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of the people against a tyrannical federal gov't. A musket isn't even suitable for self-defense in this day and age.

If you want to play the original intent game, then I have a suggestion for you. The Founders never dreamed that such a thing as the internet would ever exist, so obviously the 1st amendment right of free speech doesn't apply to your posts on a website. So shut your mouth.

wow, you're a fucktard.

...It applies to GOVERNMENT.  Last time I checked, TER was a private enterprise, so it can make any rule it wants to suppress speech, including moderating posts.  Let's hope they don't moderate you - the more you post the more you demonstrate your stupidity.  

There ARE other amendments beside the Second.  Try studying those for a while.

...as clear and concise as spades, and even though I linked a video that had NOTHING to do with the OP, and even though I didn't mention people having weapons equal to those the government has, I still said it first!

What did I say first?  I dunno mein, I been smokin' a lot tonight."

misleading the stupid telling the government you elected is going to come after you and take your guns away so you won’t be able protect your property and loved ones.

...you're a dumb shit.

Since we're gonna talk all original intent and all, meaning the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, then obviously freedom of speech only applies the same way. You can speak before a group of people, or you could write your thoughts down in a pamphlet, but the Founders never DREAMED that you could write your own words down on an electronic device that can be viewed by anyone in the world at any time. Obviously, that's "super speech", and you don't have the right of super speech.

While they haven't had success, libs will continue to sponsor bills/laws that would ban guns.  They might not get there in 5 yrs or 10 yrs or 15 yrs, but they will get there eventually.  

Ok Firearms provide at least a chance at resistance, without them there would be very little you could do.  
      Do you stand a much of a chance against drones and tanks? Not a chance i hell but thats isnt the point. If our government decides to wipe out the population as a whole, it s over. What firearms do is provide a measure against tyrany. Look at some of the most tyranical governments of the 20th century and you ll see one of the first things they do is take weapons from the people they want to oppress. 2000 yrs ago Rome took swords away from parts of Brittian. There was a reason for it. Much of europe in the middle ages wouldnt allow peasents to own a sword or similar weapon. Allowing your self to be disarmed is akin to becoming sheep.

So, since we've established that original intent is important, and that the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, therefore, free speech only applies to you speaking without a microphone, and the written word is only protected by pressing your words out onto pamphlets.

So therefore, shut your fucking face.

I didnt see a thing about super clips in your post I replied to. The OP was asking for the true reasoning behind the 2 nd amendment and the reasons for defending it. Read your post over.

Go shout fire in a crowded theater then. Or go to an airport and tell those nice TSA agents that you have a boom-boom.

You've made your bed, Laffytunes, now it's time to sleep in it. I'm only allowed to have a musket, and you're not allowed to post messages on a fuck board.

So, shut your fucking face.

At this point, the only thing that would be ironic is if you actually did shut your fucking face.