Conveniently decided by you, of course.
Or by any little bunch of yahoos willing to go occupy a bird sanctuary.
The Constitution’s consenters are all dead. No one alive today consented to it, or the income tax, or the Social Security system, etc.
We are ruled by the dead.
You do have the ability to do something about it. If you care enough, that is. Do you?
No, decided by a supermajority of the populace. You seem to be hung up on the notion that it’s the government vs. anarchists, and that therefore being able to revolt against the government is an absurdity. You’re not taking into account the rest of the public (who are what in this scenario- passive victims?) The idea was that the merits of a revolt would be judged by popular consensus; In ascending order of how much popular support they have, people who take up arms are:
[ol]
[li]criminals[/li][li]terrorists[/li][li]guerrillas[/li][li]a rebel army[/li][li]the new government[/li][/ol]
The idea of an armed populace is to uphold the second half of the “ballots or bullets” theory of government. As long as the people have a peaceful means of resolving disputes, the arms won’t be necessary.
A supermajority would be able to call a constitutional convention, like the Constitution itself provides for, without engaging in the mass cop-killing you fantasize about.
and the difference in step 5 from all the others is crucial:
Win.
Your.
War.
And win it, as a bunch of yahoos with small arms, against the United States Army. Good luck. 
Agreed that a tremendous amount of luck would be needed. As in the type of luck that the American colonies had against what was then the world’s superpower.
It’s very rare but not without precedent.
oh and, Vietnam says, “hello”. 
Where do you get this idea that our own army would be the agent of an alien power?
As usual, you ignore the history of civil wars virtually everywhere that had one, including here. You always assume perfect loyalty to the existing government on the part of the military and the police, something not at all backed up by real world warfare. You also assume absurdities like the military having a perfect willingness to expend any and all their assets on “a bunch of yahoos” no matter where they are. They don’t even do that now when at war with foreign enemies.
For that matter, you are also, as always, ignoring an awful lot of living memory history of armed “yahoos” denying victory to modern militaries, including the mighty US military. As noted upthread, though, this has all been covered before and you are immune to it. Whatever the next gun thread is, you’ll be there heavy-breathing over “yahoos” getting crushed by the US military.
This topic is always where the gun lobby shows itself to be delusional and fanatical instead of sober and responsible. They’re their own worst enemies, and they don’t understand why.
Can you say anything other than empty rhetoric? No military can stand insurrection on its own land! The only reason that we “won” Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq (as opposed to the Gulf War, which was fully conventional) was because we had a secure homeland with such a larger economy that we had no problem projecting force half way around the world.
Do you think that is possible when insurgents operate in the heartland of the military? How do fighter jets get refueled when it is possible to blow it up at the oil right, at the pipeline, or in a tanker? Those bases have to get their food and electricity from somewhere. I doubt that they have enough space to house all the personnel (and their families) that live off base. And do you think soldiers are really willing to kill their own civilian people, those that look the same and speak the same language?
Also I do not know about the other posters in this thread, but I do not like being called a member of “the gun lobby”. I have never donated to the NRA or any R group.
Oh yes, most certainly. In fact, I think people should only be allowed to use hand operated printing presses. The right of a free press is obviously limited to what the founders had access to! Nobody NEEDS the amount of text production afforded by the penny press, those should be limited to only those groups approved by the government! And linotype machines? Absolutely wanton!
We need another Amendment to allow civilian ownership of the internet, since that obviously falls outside the scope of the First.
What did it take to get those yahoos out of that bird sanctuary?
More detailed than the usual fantasy about resisting jackboots, gotta give you that. But still a fantasy, and bringing it up is still credibility-destroying.
And you don’t have to, to be part of the movement anyway.
It’s not a strawman. The standard phrasing and reply from most gun enthusiasts is that any limiting proposal only ends at the worst possible outcome of the slippery slope.
I like getting your feedback because you generally provide valuable insights and can also get beyond the hyperbole, such as “This doesn’t mean your hyperbole comes to pass but it would be different.” You and others on this board have evolved my own position on firearms. Magazine capacity - phffft, knock yourself out. Scary looking “AR-15 assault style” is a total distraction as it is a cosmetic appearance. Me, should I ever want a firearm, want to be able to purchase one after a reasonable waiting period and with universal registration and very overtly defined owner responsibility/legal liability spelled out. While that isn’t the way the 2nd is currently interpreted, I do hope my country gets there in a reasonable amount of time.
But that’s not the phrasing you are responding to. You’ve introduced absolutism and conclusions that don’t follow from the statement you are responding to, hence the strawman. I guess it’s not particularly relevant to this discussion but the way you’ve framed this line of thought isn’t accurate. I can leave it at that.
So I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Measure for Measure that he didn’t respond to - Do you believe that Caetano should be a convicted felon, that stun guns should be outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, and that Caetano who is nearly a foot shorter and close to 100 pounds lighter than her abuser should not have used a weapon to defend herself? In other words, to the thread topic, do you think stun guns and some non-firearm arms should be covered under the 2nd?
That’ll earn you a warning, Elvis. Please don’t insult other posters like that.
Provided they were allowed to call a constitutional convention- without being arrested as “public enemies” and either detained without charge or given a show trial and executed. That’s what this whole thing is about.
Which is why gun owners not only object to further limits on firearms, we’d like most of the ones already in place removed. (Tell you what- let’s “compromise” 
:if you let us have machine guns and man-portable explosive ordinance like grenade launchers and RPGs, we’ll agree to let nuclear weapons stay illegal)
Currently our government wouldn’t, thank goodness. But you seem to think that because that’s so, no one needs guns. To some degree it’s because we have so many civilian guns that there’s a deterrent effect; no one thinks imposing martial law in the US would be fast, easy, or cheap. If our government ever turned tyrannical, it would be rather late in the day to start trying to acquire weapons.
When the game is played to the perverse extreme that even words like “is” can’t be agreed upon the necessity of firearms to hedge against the insane is axiomatic.
He ignores history because its lessons contradict his utopian ideals.