Quote Originally Posted by Haudegen
Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?
Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.

Again: My initial statement was this:

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.
Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.

For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.

Now while the Judicial Branch has narrowed the scope somewhat of what Freedom of Speech means - they have done so within the scope of their constitutional authority (for the most part), the legislative branch has also done the same thing by adding additional ammendments to the constitution, and by making legislative laws. This is all consistent with the democratic process as envisioned in the constitution.


A basic concept of rights that I have mentioned before.
Rights - require responsiblity. If one is unwilling to accept responsiblity one does not need rights.


I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.
All 10 ammendments in what is called the Bill of Rights serve that function.

The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.
Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.

Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
Alreadly noted.