> The Founding fathers didnt see a time when Weapons
> would be mass produced in factories, the police
> and the military would have superior fire power
> just superior numbers. The populace and military
> of the time was armed with Muskets both of which
> was made by craftsment. Founding father's world
> had people who needed weapons to hunt for food.
> So im not saying but ASKING is an armed populace
> what the founding fathers determined when pointing
> at that ammendment?
Finally, a well-posed question. The founding fathers used precise language to reveal the intent. If you pull up a copy of the Constitution, the wording "the people" is only mentioned two times in the non-amended areas... the Preamble and the House of Representatives election cycle. Both of these clearly are speaking of the citizenry (not just members of the military, not just hunters). The next time we find that wording is in the First Amendment, which says "... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". The next of course is the Second Amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." and the next is the Fourth Amendment "...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...". We see from these that the Second Amendment is totally surrounded by the same term "the people" it uses, and in every case it clearly refers to the citizenry. Why would the founding fathers have meant any differently for the Second Amendment?
If you want more details on this (and probably more than you would want), here is a link to a Feb 1982 Congressional subcommittee document studying this issue:
> On the one hand we have laws against murder nad
> manslaughter and look down on vigilantes BUT we
> have concealed carry laws and permits for the
> right to bear arms.
The reasons for keeping and bearing arms are different than murder and vigilantism (for the good guys, at least). Self defense, protection against tyrannical government, and hunting being among them. It would be like arguing all knives, including cooking knives, should be banned because knives are used by murderers and vigilantes.
The sad thing about concealed carry laws is that they exist in the first place. The primary reason I got one was so that I could transport a handgun in my glove compartment while traveling around Virginia. You can't do that in Virginia without a conceal carry permit. You can place it in plain view on the dashboard or on the passenger seat, but then you risk freaking out Tim45. In order to "keep and bear arms" by practical means in some cases, you have to go through the conceal carry permit background checks, paperwork, fees and courthouse visit. So they aren't handed out like candy, not everyone can meet the requirements and background check, and the fact that one is needed at all is not indicative of freedoms... it demonstrates the need of Virginia to check you out and know what you are doing ahead of time and approve it. Luckily VA is a "shall-issue" state, which means they have to grant you one if you have met the requirements and pass the background check. In the old days you had to provide reasons and it was up to a judge or sheriff whether to give you one or not. They even have you marked in the DMV database so if you are pulled over they know you have one. All this in order to act as freely as gang-bangers do... they don't need to bother with all of this legal stuff.
> THere are laws in the US
> against the military acting as apolice force for a
> reason so noone could take over and STAY in power.
> Earlier someone posted about an armed
> insurrection by the FCPD? Come on!?
This isn't as crazy as you would think. In fact this changed in 2006... read this:
Also take some time to read this piece by Ted Rall (who is as liberal as they come I will add. No one ever said I wasn't even-handed) on the Military Commissions Act recently signed by Bush.