Of course for the people. Only people can have rights. And rights are bestowed by govt's. They can give you the right to smoke weed or they can put you in jail for it.
You are mixing together two different concepts, rights vs privileges. Rights exist regardless of whether a government recognizes it. Humans have the right not to be enslaved, raped, tortured, or murdered. Yet in the USSR, Mao's China, and any number of other current or past examples people indeed were horribly abused by their governments. Did the Jews in Nazi Germany have the right not to be murdered? Do political prisoners in China have the right not to have their organs harvested without their consent?
But there are many privileges bestowed by government. We have the privilege of operating motor vehicles on publicly maintained roadways, as long as we comply with limitations and requirements placed upon us by the granting authority.
The Declaration of Independence spoke to this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Creator, whether it be one's God or Nature, endows each person at creation with certain rights which are inalienable
, meaning those rights cannot be removed by anyone even if they are prohibited by force. Governments are constituted by The People in order to protect these rights
. The prime, and really the only legitimate, purpose of government is to protect the basic rights of the citizens.
In any case, the people were not given rights to bear arms to eat pie, but to form militias that were necessary at a time before we spent a trillion bucks a year or so on national defense.
And they were given regarding "arms" long before they could kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye.
No, the people were not given a right to form militias. The people have the right to self defense as a function of existing. Just like the animal in the forest has the right to defend their life, humans have an inherent right to defend against physical harm or enslavement. Self defense requires access to whatever tools or methods are available, which means "arms". Thus there is a natural right to possess arms. The 2A protects
this right by prohibiting the government from restricting the ability to defend oneself. As the government was rightly considered the greatest threat to personal liberty, it would make no sense for the government to be allowed to be the arbiter of what is permitted in the way of RKBA.
Governments have killed hundreds of millions of humans in the last century, far more than criminals or individual nutjobs.
No, because it's the act of speech, not the tool to store or broadcast it that's given special status. Having said that, the first amendment was given to permit the free exchange of political ideas. The kind that Joe McCarthy and his student Ted Cruz would have you punished or banished for engaging.
Right, what is protected by the 2A is the act of keeping and the act of bearing. The tool is not protected, it is the possession of it and the access to it which is protected
The gov't can still put you in jail for threatening speech, fraudulent speech, speech that incites violence etc.
Again, also correct wrt keeping and bearing arms. One may not harm others without justification. There is no right to yell fire in a crowded theater if your intent is to incite panic
. You are doing harm. But you do have the right to yell fire in the theater if you believe there is in fact a fire. Speech is defined as the communication of facts, beliefs, and opinions. Speech as covered in the 1A does not include intentionally harmful acts such as slander (which is saying false information) or inciting panic in a theater (also involves false information and does not contain a belief or opinion).
Your RKBA does not include armed robbery or poaching deer.
Because even back then, those weren't the only tools for killing. To suggest they had storing an ICBM complete with a nuclear warhead in the backyard is a little far fetched.
All the writings of the Founders indicate they intended every imaginable weapon to be covered by the 2A. Tenche Cox very eloquently stated "all the terrible implements of war". Until the 2A is modified via Constitutional amendment it continues to mean what it says, which is all arms.
If you agree to restrict the 2A to some subset of modern arms, I promise you the same logic will be used to restrict your 1A rights. Are you a Mormon? Sorry, Mormons didn't exist during revolutionary times. Like to use your computer to post on the internet? Sorry, that's not protected.
This is where conservative ideology breaks down completely. They would like everyone to think that Obama is such a guy. Based on what, no one is certain. But the fact is, he was legally elected, has done nothing to limit anyone's freedom of speech or gun rights or anything else.
That argument would have merit if someone like Saddam decided to attack us, disband our gov't and implement Sharia law, but not because someone got elected with whom you have a difference of opinion over policy. And if we didn't have a trillion dollar a year military at our disposal to engage him, but we do. We don't need to arm psychotics with machine guns, despite your desire to live like it's 1776.
Obama and many D's in the federal government have indeed increased restrictions on RKBA over the last 7 years.
But that is besides the point. I personally have never met nor have I ever come across any writings, videos, etc of any 2A proponent, any Republican, any Tea Party member, or any conservative who wants to or advocates shooting any government official currently. Everyone sees the 2A as the ejection seat, the last option which should be avoided unless there is no other choice.
But, an armed populace is indeed a good deterrent to an aspiring tyrant. The first thing they do when they gain power is disarm their opposition. The 2A prevents that disarming. And I would bet it has deterred some from seeking political power.
"We" don't arm psychotics. Many of them steal weapons or otherwise illegally obtain them. Almost every single mass public shooting has occurred in a location which prohibits lawful gun possession.