First, if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post instead of just the first sentence, you would understand that just rebelling against England was meaningless. America didn't take on freedom and democratic government simply because it rebelled. We could just as easily have become a tyrannical monarchy, but simply ruled by different people. It is the text of the constitution and the rule of law that made the revolution mean anything. The fighting would have just been on behalf of a few greedy landowners if they had set up a new aristocracy. It was the words the founders set down that created the template for modern democratic government, not the bullets and bayonets.
As for Tienanmen Square, do you realize that the shame and derision that was aimed at China because of the massacre is one of the major reasons why China has become less totalitarian? The violence didn't end the discourse, it didn't end the struggle, it didn't stop those students from making progress towards their goals. It only ended the people. And we all know that killing a person doesn't destroy what they stood for. Is actually sacrificing something for your patriotism too complex an idea for you?
Well, the war on drugs really isn't (my opinion, opposed by half a century of supreme court rulings), but it will need a major movement in favor of stripping the government of power and reinforcing the fourth amendment to make that happen. Restoring the fourth amendment is one of the few situations where I think a major overturning of previous supreme court doctrine would be both possible and beneficial.
Most of the first amendment ones actually are quite reasonable, though, and pass the strictest of scrutiny. What makes me think some things are constitutional and some aren't is that I, in a fit of madness, actually study law, read constitutional cases, and learn how the whole thing works.
Right there, you are listing infringements that are reasonable. Clearly these amendments are not meant to be 100% ironclad. They are meant to bend a little. So I return to my original question. Why is it that pro gun people take the position that the second amendment is immune to this sort of bending, when no other rule is? The same people who argue that the fourteenth amendment wasn't intended to protect homosexuals because the writers weren't thinking of them then turn around and say that the second amendment applies to all kinds of weapons that didn't exist in 1798. All I am seeking is come consistency.
The second amendment guarantees the right to own weapons. It does not say anything about owning all types of weapons, nor about owning weapons free from registration, training, or accountability. I, and most other people who are opposed to the proliferation of weapons, do not want to remove the right to own weapons. We just want some regulation to keep the whole thing as safe as possible. And since that same regulation is applied to every other amendment, and done so in a consistent manner, passing the same tests for legitimacy, regardless of the right involved, why should the second amendment be immune?