To say; "government is meant to serve, not fear, the people. " is foolish. To make it simple, you fear your boss. Not because he is mean or any such thing but because he has the power to fire you.
For the Government to fear the people makes the Government responsive to the people. When the Government does not fear the people you arrive at a situation like we have now, where the Government decides that it does not matter what the people say or desire we are going to pass the law we think is best for them.
The people did not want to bail out the auto companies. The Government went ahead anyway! The people have determined that the Government plan for health insurance is fatally flawed and do not want it. What is the Government position? Pass it anyhow! We'll fix it later! The second part of that is proof they know it is flawed, why not fix it first?

Quote Originally Posted by Bren122 View Post
A government is meant to serve, not fear, the people.

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.
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.
the western expansion changed the basis for this thinking. a militia force was not feesible and a standing (and woefully underfunded) army could not be everywhere. people still needed to defend themselves so the thinking behind the right to bare arms changed.
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.
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. just how does owning a rifle with the capacity to shoot someone over a mile away help you defend your home and family?
the sorts of weapons that the right are defending access to are a crutch to the nutjobs on both sides of the debate- a fall back position so that they don't have to compromise. about the only justification for these weapons' widespread proliferation is to defend against our friends up in the mountains of Idaho and Montana when they get sick and tired of waiting for the "World Government" to make its move and decide on a pre-emptive strike as at Oklahoma City.
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.