Albeit long, I feel it is well written and gives another thoughtful perspective. I did not write it but I do agree with it.
An excerpt from another forum:
"Let's go back to when the Bill of Rights were written. It was shortly after the Colonials had won their independence from the tyrannical British government. The Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the need for an armed citizenry to ensure freedom -- that they chose to address the Right to Bear Arms as being the most important right, only preceded by the Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Religion.
The bloody conflict that had just ended involved state-of-the-art weapons for the time -- single-shot flintlock muskets with bayonets, horse cavalry and muzzle loading cannons. Many gun control advocates point to this weaponry -- and the time required to reload between shots -- as being a difference in the right to bear arms then, and the right to bear arms now. However, remember that the opposing force -- the British Army -- was using the same type of weaponry at the time.
The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms was not for hunting, sporting, or even individual self defense -- the purpose was to ensure an armed citizenry (the "militia") to protect freedom from any future tyrannical government. Thus why it was also written that if the U.S. Government ever reached a point in the future where it did not govern for the people and by the people -- it should be abolished and a new government formed.
The scales of available weaponry between the armed citizenry --and the organized army of the U.S. Government were equal. They each possessed the same weaponry and capabilities. The number of the armed citizens out-numbered the ranks of the organized army of the newly formed government. An interesting phrase that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" is often overlooked (conveniently) by politicians and gun control proponents. The founding fathers had the foresight to see that an increasingly powerful federal government could infringe upon the rights of the citizens to own and bear arms as time passed and technology improved -- which would put the armed citizenry (the"militia") at a disadvantage to the government's military and law enforcement agencies.
Over the years, infringement of the citizen's right to bear arms has occurred, and the scale has now tipped in favor of the government and placed the citizenry (you and me) at a disadvantage. If first began in 1934, when the National Firearms Act was introduced by levying a $200 tax (burdensome at the time) to possess and own selective fire (fully automatic) weapons, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and destructive devices. The law was ruled unconstitutional, and was superseded by new legislation in 1968 to correct the constitutional errors. Then, in 1986 -- things were further restricted. Civilian ownership of select-fire (fully automatic) firearms manufactured after 1986 by lawful individuals was prohibited, only the military and law enforcement agencies could possess and use such weapons -- although those manufactured prior to 1986 could continue to be owned, possessed, and used by the citizenry -- if they were willing to pay the NFA Tax and go through the registration process. The cost of the limited numbers of pre-1986 NFA firearms skyrocketed as a result -- to where the average citizen can not afford to possess such weapons.
In 1994, the "Crime" Bill aka "Assault Weapons Ban" was signed into law (thankfully, it had a sunset clause with a 10 year expiration). The ban focused primarily on how a particular firearm "looked" -- rather than the design and operation of the firearm. The "ban" did nothing to reduce crime -- and mass murders occurred during it's tenure (Columbine, Jonestown, etc.). The law was totally ineffective as to it's purported intent and focus. It only limited items and produced a burden on the law abiding citizens (the criminals didn't care about the law then and they certainly won't for any future legislation to restrict firearms).
Let's now compare the present day -- and that scale with the armed citizenry on one side, and the military and law enforcement on the other. It is severely tipped in the government's favor in terms of what types and capabilities of weapons are available to each side. Could the armed citizenry today resist a future tyrannical US Government? That's why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution -- right? The only thing going for the armed citizenry right now -- is sheer numbers. One of the reasons that the Japanese did not attempt an invasion of the west coast of the US after Pearl Harbor (little was standing in their way) -- was the fear amongst the Japanese Generals of the sheer number of American citizens who had firearms! Armed citizens in the US continue to out-number the ranks of the organized military tody -- but not for long, if the liberal politicians could have their way. They would love for the US to follow the example of England, Australia, and New Zealand.
Any gun control legislation has but one goal -- to restrict or disarm the American citizenry. It isn't about crime prevention -- it isn't about "safety" to the population -- it is about power and control. Of all people, I expected you to see this. Maybe you aren't comfortable with firearms -- or have never had an occasion to spend much time with them...but some of your statements on air are way off base. An AR-15 owned by the average citizen is a semi-automatic rifle -- requiring a trigger pull for each projectile launched downrange. They are not "heavy weapons"! Check with your military experts for the definition of a heavy weapon... ALL shoulder-fired weapons and handguns are referred to a "small arms". Heavy weapons refer to artillery and crew-served weapon systems. No civilian in the USA owns heavy weapons! That scale I talked about is tipped so far in the government's favor that the citizenry of the US would have little hope to resist - much less over-throw a future tyrannical government in this country.
Just look at what is happening in Syria as an example. The rebels have small arms (select fire, fully automatic ones), and a very few heavy weapons -- and they have been battling the regime's forces for over a year (even though they are getting some assistance from other governments) with tens of thousands killed and wounded. How would American citizens fare in a similar conflict on our soil?
Fortunately, we do not live under a dictator (yet) -- but even you should see that the power and control of the US government has grown to the point of becoming tyrannical in some of it's policies. The "Affordable Health Care Act" is one such example. The American people did not want it -- but it was rammed down our throats anyway. Those on government assistance now out-number those who aren't in the US -- thus why the President was re-elected for a second term. The American public wants to see us tackle spending and our debt problem -- but it doesn't appear that will happen, at least not for the next 4 years...it's only going to get worse.
Do you really believe that future American citizens will never face a tyrannical government worthy of overthrow or abolishment in the future -- ever? The scale of power when it comes to weapons is greatly tilted in the government's favor now -- further infringement of the Second Amendment will only tip it further.
The tragedy in Connecticut was a crime -- a crime committed by a mentally unstable individual. We don't need gun control -- we need crime control, as well as improved mental health care capability. Before you are willing to give up your right to oppose a future tyrannical government with weapons as provided for in the Second Amendment, and jump on the gun control band-wagon with the liberal politicians and "talking heads" -- think about what I have written, and put it into perspective with the purpose and intent of the founding fathers. Maybe that would be a great subject for your next book -- the Founding Fathers, and what exactly they meant when writing each of the Bill of Rights!
Again, the Second Amendment isn't about the right to hunt, the right to engage in sporting activities, or the right for individual self defense -- the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the American people have the means possible to resist a future tyrannical government with force, through the use of weapons -- no matter how technology may improve them in years to come. We don't have that right today (as our rights have already been infringed unconstitutionally) - and it appears that you want to give up what power we still have today..."
