Next, we come to the Second Amendment ...

One of the most acrimonious and long running debates in the U.S. has been the one regarding exactly what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they added the Second Amendment to our Constitution.  So, first, let's take a look at hat they wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Okay, so, where are the points of contention?  Well, that's easy!  What did they mean by the term "Militia"?  How about the phrase "well regulated Militia"?  Okay, if we could agree on those, what were they thinking when the referenced "Arms"?  As if that weren't enough, why in the world would they not only allow for but seemingly encourage the possibility of citizens having firearms and surely that could only apply to muskets, right?

Let's take the last bit of that first.  The Founding Fathers had just engaged in a war for their independence and, in order to have done that, they had to have had firearms and, in fact, the possession of firearms had to have been fairly universal.  In addition, in the fairly recent history of citizens of England, the King of England had selectively confiscated the weapons of those citizens in order to ensure that only those who favored the king would have weapons.  In some cases, the confiscation of weapons from the king's opponents had been accompanied by veiled and not so veiled encouragement to persecute those opponents.  In the final analysis, the Founding Fathers were very aware that, in order to enforce their declaration that

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

In other words, the Founding Fathers drew a straight line of logic from "We have the right and obligation to throw off a despotic government." to "In order to do so, we need to be armed at least approximately as well as the troops of the government we are throwing off." to "In fact, in order to be able to prevent any newly formed government from becoming despotic, our citizens will need to own firearms."  So, when ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being discussed, the various States were concerned about many points, not the least of which was the fact that a federal government could be strong enough to become despotic.  As a result, They were more than a little concerned about the possibility not only of a standing army but also of the newly formed government becoming despotic.  As a result, they wanted to make sure that the citizenry was not put in the position of not being able to invoke the right and duty that had been outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Interestingly enough, there is an interesting point that could easily be argued and that is that, because the colonists were armed, to a great extent, with rifles rather than muskets the colonists might have actually been armed better than the British Red Coats.  Why? The British Red Coats were armed, for the most part, with the "Brown Bess" musket, which was a smooth bore weapon and, therefore, not extremely accurate.  That was why the British approach to deploying those weapons depended on massed troops all firing in the same general direction ... basically in the hopes of creating one huge shotgun.  The colonists, on the other hand, were more often than not armed with weapons that had rifled barrels and that were, therefore, far more accurate.  As a result, the colonists often used the same techniques that were used by Native Americans (and that were decried by the British as "unfair", "ungentlemanly", and "against the known rules of warfare"), i.e. instead of massing their troops and firing as a group, the colonists found as fairly well coordinated individuals and often from behind trees, walls, fences, etc. 

In the various towns and villages of the British colonies on the Atlantic coast, every able bodied man was expected to own a firearm and to be prepared to join together to defend the town or village.  That was what constituted the militia of the town or village.  In fact, most towns and villages required the able bodied men to periodically gather to drill and practice their defense activities and to ensure that everyone was prepared with their arms and ammunition ... which, of course, also offered an excellent opportunity for the men to socialize and have a pint or two of all or rum.  While the periodic gatherings and the requirement to own a weapon and ammunition were mandated by the local government, the actual acquisition and ownership of those items were incumbent upon the individual and were not provided or paid for by the local government.  In addition, some towns and villages did acquire some sort of cannon and ammunition for it and, even, in a few cases a supply of gunpowder and shot; however, the primary weight of defense rested on the individuals and their weapons. Thus, it could be argued that the "well regulated Militia" could be considered to be "the whole of the local, able bodied male population who are mandated by law to own a suitable weapon and ammunition for that weapon".

So, returning to the opening discussion of terms, it could well be argued that the expectation of our Founding Fathers was that every able bodied male (and, to bring that up to date, also every able bodied female) would own a firearm and ammunition for it, although the purchasing of those items would not be funded by the local community.  Those able bodied individuals would be mandated to periodically gather together to practice the defense of their community.  Since the rifles owned by the colonists were equivalent to or better than the muskets of the armies of the day and the Native Americans who might be attacking the colonists, the colonists owned arms that were equivalent to the weapons of the armies they might face.  Therefore, it could really be argued that our Founding Fathers anticipated not only the wide spread ownership of firearms but, actually, the widespread ownership of arms that would be equivalent to those owned by the arm ... in other words, assault rifles and even fully automatic weapons ... and they wanted to ensure against the newly created federal government infringing upon that right, i.e. limiting or even trying to deny that right.