Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller703
I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.
|
Before assuming the above is all encompassing, we should be aware of the period of time and what was happening.
Individual Firearm Weapons commonly used at that time were basically one-shot Muskets. Some basic rifles available but were still one shot.
Prior to the Revolutionary war (1775-1783) there was no US but 13 colonies of England.
The Frontier for example was Carlisle PA in 1755. The French and Indian war was 1754-1763. Much of the fighting was done by Militias from the Colonies. The "Colonies" rebelled at being taxed by Britain.
Colonies Declared Independence in 1776. Colonies (now states) issued Articles of Confederation 1777 -1781.
Revolutionary War over 1783. US Constitution 1789. Bill of rights 1791. These were amendment to the constitution. Amendment 2 topic of concern.
1792 Militia Act defined Militia requirements (Still single shot muskets). Militias defined as state responsibilities. Mentioned, Militias were there to protect again indigenous people uprisings, and protection against rebellions and protests. No specific reference to Loyalists or Protection from the Government. Spelled out the requirements for firearms, ammo etc for the Militia members to own.
This commentary is not meant to support or negate gun ownership, but when I see comments like the above second amendment put in place to protect the people from the government, I look for support but don't see it. The fact that the government mentioned Militias and soon after clarified their use and the requirements for citizens to participate and provide weapons is enlightening to me.