Jump to content
By requiring that all citizens which at that time meant free men 17-50, be a member of the militia the Constitution defined "citizen" not the National Guard which is the modern day descendent of the States "organized" militias. The intent was to give the citizens the "right" to resist and throw off the yoke of a federal government if it were to become "oppressive" and indifferent to the rights of it's citizens. The ability to understand the Constitution relies on the readers ability to understand the context of the times and to do that the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and many others of the times should be read so that the citizen of today understands the minds of those who framed the Constitution, not nitwits of today who interpret it with their own narrow mindsets. Once one is aware of the intent of the framers they have the broad understanding that the framers wanted the citizens to have a way to stand up to and if necessary remove a trynanical government. This is their viewpoint based upon their experiences with the governments of England and other European countries who had colonized North America. So in essance the AR-15, AK-47,and other popular firearms are the modern muskets that give the people the ability to not only provide for their own safety from criminals but also provide for their protection from a federal government that becomes unresponsive to the desires of the citizens. How often has this occurred? One need only look at Germany, most of Eastern Europe under the Communists, and many of the countries of South America to see governments which became oppressive to their citizens. The Federal government has restricted the possession of destructive devices and ownership of armored vehicles and aircraft that have not been de-militarized, as they should. It is the Federal Government's job to protect citizens from foreign powers, but the ability to own modern firearms with high capacity magazines and ammunition gives the citizens the ability to reign in the Federal Government should it turn on it's citizens. One might argue that the State's National Guard stands as a defence against a Federal Government that grows oppressive; however the Federal Government's ability to "Federalize" the Guard limit's it's ability to be a defender of the citizens of a state. The ownership of the modern musket is conerstone to protecting the Liberty and Rights of the citizens and is incumbant on their acceptance of the "responsibilities" of training and maintaining properly their firearms and ammunition. If anything, the state and federal government should insure only those citizens who are legal citizens who are not convicted felons or illegal aliens have the right to possess or aquire firearms and that training is provided for citizens in the safe and legal use of their firearms.
Last login: Tuesday, July 31, 2012