THE REAL HONEST-TO-GOD PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT "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" -Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "This declaration of rights, as I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal- administration of government." -Eldbridge Gerry Massachusetts Delagate to the Constitutional Convention August 17, 1789 Rock on, baby. It might be difficult to convince Buford T. Public of this fact, but the Second Amendment was never intended to allow him to keep rapid fire assualt rifles in his trailer so he could shoot every crack-addicted baby-raper that dares to set foot onto the 30 square yards Buford calls his own. No matter how much good ol' Buford may consider that a public service. No, the Second Amendment is much deeper than that. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Anti-Federalists (the ones who thought that the Articles of Confederation, the joke under which our government was running at the time, were just fine, thank you, and any attempt at making a strong federal government would lead to tyranny) were against a permanent army because from their experience, it was much easier for a tyrant (or a tyrannical political party) to get control of a government when it has the support of the military. A permanent army would be able to keep an unarmed population under control with relative ease. To the Anti-Federalists, an unarmed population was virtually a guarantee of tyranny. Even the Federalists, the ones who saw that Britian and Spain were laughing their asses off at our Articles of Confederation, and would continue to do so until we developed a real manly government, never wanted a big army. They advocated only that army that was necessary to prevent other countries and wild Indians from invading us. Their chief fear was that a large peacetime army, standing around with nothing to do, will draw us into war just to justify their existance. (Can you say "JFK-Oliver Stone-Military-Industrial-Complex Theory"?) The Federalists accepted the necessity of a permanent army, but they and the Anti-Federalists made certain that Congress had to debate the needs and requirements of this army every two years. During the dealmaking of the Constitutional Convention, the Anti-Federalists more or less won on the issue of national defense. The new nation would not have an army during peacetime; it was up to the citizens to protect themselves from other governments and from their own. Why is this important nowadays? We already have a permanent military, and if they can't protect us from invasion, there's not a lot that good old Buford and his Uzis can do. Military hardware is just too powerful. Likewise, exchanging gunfire with the military as a way of expressing your distaste for what you feel is tyranny is just going to make Janet Reno pissed at you. You know how she gets. So if we can't fight, let's hide. Hide our records, our writings, our past and our future. Not from each other, baby, (that makes no sense) but from the government. There's nothing that says that you have to make it easy for the government to read your mail and tap your phone. The key issue behind any interpretation of the Second Amendment is not "Does Buford have the right to own another grenade launcher?", but rather "Do we as citizens have the right to defend ourselves against our government?"