A message to our Leadership in America

[steelish]

A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

Our government should "fear" us...as in, have a healthy respect for us. But it does not. They do not fear us at all at the ballot, but the next election should change their minds.

The majority of the continental congress did not want a large standing army or navy; many did not want an army or navy AT ALL (and I believe Jefferson was one of these). this is a distinctly English import- the refugees from Cromwellian England were well aware of the dangers of military dictatorship and the dangers of a standing army. the subsequent triumph of the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution convinced the people of England that no army was stronger than the will of the people- they are wrong. governments are only overthrown from within when they lose the support of the military.

No. Governments are overthrown when they lose the support of the PEOPLE. Are you implying that the only reason Americans haven't forcefully overthrown the government is because of the armed forces?

the militia system was seen as an answer to the problem of a military coup and defending the nation. the right to bare arms clearly derives from this principle.

It derives from the Founders realizing that power corrupts, and the right to bear arms is not only a way to add balance to our nation...but how likely is it that we will attacked on our shores when many citizens can rise up in arms and help our militia? Anyone with weapons in their home is a potential protector of America.

now the idea that when faced with the vast array of technology and weapons platforms available to the US army, navy and air force, combined with a dictatorship willing to go to any lengths to ensure its position, that 20 gumnuts in Idaho or Montana armed with an arsenal of all kinds is going to resist is laughable. fighting to the death to preserve their access to any weapon or ammunition they deem necessary is moronic.

You might find it laughable and moronic, but there are many in the U.S. who would fight to the death for that right. If the government ever overturns the Second Amendment, God help America.

the basis or necessity of the right to bare arms has changed again and it needs to be argued in light of that change- but there also has to be a recognition that possessing the means to turn your fellow citizen into gruel because their dog shits on your lawn is not conducive to a peaceful society.

Hmmm, that certainly doesn't happen in MY neighborhood!

just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?

You're speaking of a .50 caliber sniper rifle. They cost over $10,000. There are very few citizens with rifles of that caliber. AND, the government knows exactly who has them. I agree that they are unnecessary to the average citizen, but like I said, the government knows who has them because of all the restrictions placed on such weapons.

i am not arguing against A right to bare arms; just that some arms are not conducive to the proper functioning of a society. trying to defend them puts that right in peril, especially if it does not make a lot of sense.

And I never thought you were arguing against the right, just pointing out that your interpretation of the Second Amendment was off.