The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Somewhere around 1786, the young government of the United States was already squabbling among themselves. Two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, could not agree as to whether or not governmental power should be limited. The Federalists were of the opinion that government should have whatever power they need, while the Anti's believed that a gov't with too much power could, without warning, take over and eliminate the people's choices and rights to do much of anything. Out of this squabble came the Bill of Rights. Somehow, the two sides came to a compromise, and wrote down certain rights that would not be taken away from the people in order to give them freedom and safety from their own government. The first article on this bill is for the right of freedom of speech/freedom of religion/freedom of peaceful assembly. The second has to do with the right to keep and bear arms. That's the second of the original ten. Pretty high up in order of importance, don't you think? The language that was used when the bill was written was different than that we speak today. Grammar and sentence structure were paid much more attention than they are today, and were slightly different than today's language. To determine what, exactly, the framers meant by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", you have to look at the process the article went through to be approved, and see the language that was used in the original drafts. These people, the Anti-Federalists, believed that an armed society could not be taken over by a governmental army, because the government simply could not enlist enough soldiers to do so. There will ALWAYS be more people in society than in a military force. Even at this time in history, there was evidence that if you disarm the people, they are easily overwhelmed, and are at the mercy of their government. Countries around the world were in this position; no arms, no freedom. They viewed a militia as something that could be either existing, or created impromtu. Let me ask you, how can an armed militia be formed impromptu if the citizens creating the militia are not armed? The framers fully intended for society to be armed, in order to protect themselves from not only invasion from other shores, but from their own government, as well as from members of their own society who had intentions less than honorable toward fellow citizens. Don't think that just because today is "Modern Day" we can kick back and not worry about whether our government may turn on us. It was "Modern Day" when that document was written, and in the not to long past, they had fought for freedom from an oppressive government. It can happen at any time. If anything, we are in more danger today, simply because we have become complacent. Today, there are people fighting to take away our right to own and use firearms for our own defense for the reason of trying to reduce or eliminate crime in the streets. I'm glad most of these people are not gun owners, because while their intentions are just, their aim is awful. Only law abiding citizens are going to abide by the laws restricting firearms. Criminals simply do not care about what is legal and what is not. That's what makes them criminals. Take away John Doe's gun, and his ability to defend his home, Joe Criminal knows he can walk in to John's house and not get hurt. Injuries related to gunfire are vastly reduced, but theft and crime rises. Unless, of course, Joe Criminal enters with his own ILLEGAL gun and uses it on John. Crime on the streets is unfortunate, but it will never go away. It is also a small speck in the grand scheme that the framers had in mind when writing to save the people's rights. We are armed not only to protect ourselves from crime, but from any threat, including takeover by any government, even our own.