Why isn't an open and unregulated Internet a 2nd Amendment right?

[^_^ 5,021]

The commonly understood intent of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizens of this country to fight an oppressive government that denies us our rights.

In this day and age, can it really be argued that effective use of communications tools can not cripple an enemy (like a big government) that relies on these very communications to survive and thrive?

If the ChiComs landed on the west coast (my favorite example since it's obviously silly), traditional 2nd Amendment supporters would have us believe the first thing our ChiCom occupiers would do is take away our guns (or your guns, since I don't have any).

I tend to think they'll probably go after our Internet as well. Monitor it. Censor it. Throttle it. Ban software and hardware that could be used against it.

I also tend to think that going after the ChiComs by crippling their ability to communicate with each other over the Internet (or other TCP/IP based network) would be one of the most effective means of resistance. It couldn't achieve the objective alone, but rather as a supplement to the guns Second Amendment traditionalists already adore (and recognize the importance of).

So why is it not considered a violation of our Second Amendment rights when the government imposes bans on the kinds of encryption an individual may own or on how an individual may use it? Or when the government plays a role in regulating what kind of content can or can not be transmitted (in the name of protecting the children, of course). Or when the government forces the sale of software utilities that can be used to 'hack' underground?

And while we're at it, why isn't it also considered a threat to our Second Amendment rights when massive corporations in bed with our big government own and control the entire infrastructure upon which we would wage this resistance? Does anyone really doubt that Comcast or AT&T would jump in bed with the ChiComs at the drop of a hat?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The netz should be wild and free, the way God intended them to be. We don't need no stinking piece of paper to tell us that.

[Dan and Judy 614]

If the ChiComs landed on the west coast (my favorite example since it's obviously silly), traditional 2nd Amendment supporters would have us believe the first thing our ChiCom occupiers would do is take away our guns (or your guns, since I don't have any).

"We welcome China's rise," ( President Obama )

" ..........for that matter the yellow danger, China, should not be underestimated. " (Jimi Hendrix)

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The commonly understood intent of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizens of this country to fight an oppressive government that denies us our rights.

In this day and age, can it really be argued that effective use of communications tools can not cripple an enemy (like a big government) that relies on these very communications to survive and thrive?

If the ChiComs landed on the west coast (my favorite example since it's obviously silly), traditional 2nd Amendment supporters would have us believe the first thing our ChiCom occupiers would do is take away our guns (or your guns, since I don't have any).

I tend to think they'll probably go after our Internet as well. Monitor it. Censor it. Throttle it. Ban software and hardware that could be used against it.

I also tend to think that going after the ChiComs by crippling their ability to communicate with each other over the Internet (or other TCP/IP based network) would be one of the most effective means of resistance. It couldn't achieve the objective alone, but rather as a supplement to the guns Second Amendment traditionalists already adore (and recognize the importance of).

So why is it not considered a violation of our Second Amendment rights when the government imposes bans on the kinds of encryption an individual may own or on how an individual may use it? Or when the government plays a role in regulating what kind of content can or can not be transmitted (in the name of protecting the children, of course). Or when the government forces the sale of software utilities that can be used to 'hack' underground?

And while we're at it, why isn't it also considered a threat to our Second Amendment rights when massive corporations in bed with our big government own and control the entire infrastructure upon which we would wage this resistance? Does anyone really doubt that Comcast or AT&T would jump in bed with the ChiComs at the drop of a hat?

The intenet of the second amendment is clearly stated in the Heller case. Anything else, commonly understood or not, is wrong. The people that want to take away our guns often argue that the second amendment does not apply to such things as "assault weapons" because assault weapons did not exist when the amendment was passed. Neither did the internet.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with ChiComs or any other foreign invader who would certainly not respect our rights in any case and attempt to relieve us of them by force. The often used comparison is supremely silly for this reason and I am glad to see anyone use it so often. The last thing I want is a competent argument against my position. When your opponent uses silly arguments...let them.

The 2nd amendment has to do with placing limits on OUR government and providing us with the means to defend our rights from OUR government. They could also be used against ChiComs, but that is just a side benefit.

At any rate, your attempt to expand the 2nd amendment is laudable. I have a few items to add to the list since we are going that direction. Thanks.