Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, IN FULL: "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." Was the Second Amendment negotiated to allow the Southern Slaveholding States to continue policing of their large slave populations once the new federal government became responsible for the military? Read on and follow the link at the end of the article.
The Bloody NRA enablers typically leave out the first half of the sentence. It's inconvenient for their purposes, which is make money for their sponsors by selling lots of guns. But it is just ONE sentence, meaning it's just ONE thought, not two separable statements. When they do confront the entire sentence, the Bloody NRA would have us believe that the Second Amendment was created to allow us to overthrow a tyrannical government. However, it makes no sense that our founders would refer to a domestic insurrection to overthrow the government as a "well regulated militia". Well regulated by whom? On the contrary, it seems to refer to a militia capable of putting down such a rebellion or a foreign invasion and preserving our Constitutional government. And the type of Constitutional government that our founders devised for us provides for a peaceful means of changing the government. THAT is the whole point!
Furthermore, the Supreme Court while upholding the second amendment has affirmed the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their homes. Never have they affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing the government. NEVER! While I'm not totally unsympathetic to the idea that a tyrannical government might need to be opposed if one ever arrose, there is no way that citizens will ever have the type of weapons that are, and will be in the future, available to the government. Nor should they! It's been illegal to own a machine gun since the 1930's because they present too great a threat to public safety. Is that an infringement? Yes. Is it Constitutional? Yes. Is it reasonable? You're damn right it is! How many mass muders have been commited by Gunmen equipped with fully automatic weaopns in the U.S. since the 1930's? Almost ZERO. Proof that reasonable gun control laws work, even with respect to criminals.
You can't resolve the language "Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a Free State . . ." with the ability of the General Public to own any type of "Arms" ever to be devised by man. There's nothing Well Regulated about that! And remember, the Constitution doesn't say "firearms", is says "Arms", which can be interpreted to mean ANY Weapon, when of course the founders meant muskets capable of firing up to 3 rounds a minute in the hands of well trained militiamen. Hardly a major threat to public health and safety. As a Strict Constitutional Constructionalist and dogged adherent to original intent (NOT!), I insist on the right of all Americans to keep and bear all the muskets, lead balls, wadding and powder horns they can carry! RAMRODS ALL AROUND!
So was the Second Amendment designed for We the People to overthrow our own government? I don't see any evidence for that. It certainly isn't claerly stated as such. However, below is a link to an article that makes a compelling case that it's intent was to allow the Southern Slaveholding States to continue the policing of their slave populations once the right to raise armies passed from the states to the Federal Government and Congress under the new Constitution. And despite the Bloody NRA's Predictable Profit Inspired Protestations, that hardly represents a reasonable or moral underpinning for the alledged right of the General Public to own military style weapons of mass murder in Post Emanicipation Proclamation, Post Civil Rights, Modern America.
Interchangeable magazine clips were designed for the military for maximum firepower on the battlefield. They have No Legitimate Civilian Use. Ban them NOW!