The Framers intended to prevent another instance of a foreign occupying force facing a legislatively-disarmed populace by making sure militias could keep and bear arms. All the nonsense since about 1798 about it is contrary to the original premise.
Ah no, it is in place to keep the Government in check. A dis-armed citizenry is easier to control, where as armed citizens have the capacity to rise up and overthrow a corrupt tyranical gov't.
I really didn't want to contribute to the extension of this topic -
- how many of you really believe that the people, without the support of the military, could actually overthrow the US Government?
- how many of you believe that there will ever be a time when such a maneuver is necessary? (i.e. have we evolved beyond that culture and society?).
I'm not proclaiming pro-gun or anti-gun. I don't own any guns but I don't really care if you own one or want to. The crazies will be crazy with or without them and if you take away gun ownership rights, there will potentially be a long painful period when the dishonest people have them and the honest people don't. I do, however, take issue with some of the nutty arguments presented by both sides.
Look at what just happened in Thailand. It wasn't completely peaceful, but the people stood up and through largely non-violent means, managed to make a major change in the government. Granted, it's much more complicated than that - the protesters might not actually be the majority opinion so the action and end result may be questionable as it relates to justice. They also appear to have had idle support (through inaction) from the military. It was a big whopping pain in the butt for everyone else involved - but they accomplished something through financial and political hardship and without abundant death and destruction.
