would make needed changes as time went by.

Some of our founding fathers were very very intelligent and knew they could not cover every possible eventuality their country would face in future times.

especially in light of how much unilateral power they had to allow the president (who had been almost a nonentity under the Articles of Confederation). They wanted to make sure that the state-controlled militias couldn't be disarmed or co-opted by the central government.

And of course, in the South, the militia doubled as a slave patrol to prevent unrest.

Surely there were criminals in the cities in the 1700s, and self-defense was necessary in rural areas against hostile natives and wildlife.

That amendment has been parsed and parsed.

"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."

The militia part we understand. Firearms kept at home and subject to call-up to defend the country. Arms is a broad term, and capitalized. Wonder what THAT meant. In the broadest sense arms could mean anything, from steak knives to mace to battle-axe to shoulder fired rocket launchers to tanks.

So we're left with "keep and bear". Keep. Own. Bear. A show of force against criminality. The Enlightenment mind took a very positive view of human nature. Arms would be used for good things, to keep peace, to apprehend criminals. Note they didn't say "use". So it was meant as deterrent rather than unregulated license. There's the problem. We're past deterrent. We're into anarchy and malice.
Hope some judge draws that distinction sometime.

By 1787, when the constitution was written, the Revolutionary war had been over for a decade, and there were significant concerns, especially from the northern states that state militias might actually tear apart the nascent US Army, founded in 1775. However, the southern states had specifically created militias for the purpose of capturing escaped slaves and returning them to their owners, and their fear was that should there not be a formal statement to that effect that the North would force the South to give up slavery. This was the reason that this was given as the second amendment, rather than being one of the key fundamental rights given in the first (speech, press, freedom from search and seizure or unlawful billeting, and so forth) - there was a vague hope that as a separate amendment it could be overturned without overturning the others. As it turned out, even with this amendment the South would secede eighty years later.

The second amendment was a classic example of bad law - it was deliberately left vague and ambiguous, it served a very narrow parochial interest, and it was a compromise that ultimately would bring the country to its knees.

...is saying they were sociopaths, as are today's 2nd amendment absolutists.

It is hard to claim that a country is special and be proud, if the country was founded by sociopaths.

Without an inkling of what the future would bring, the document they scribed allows the 1st amendment to cover such things as radio, social media, and a myriad of other innovations. The 4th covers such things as cell phones and email. Those fellows saw more than many of us can imagine.

Bring a sound enough document to allow those rights to exist in an age unforseen by the most imaginative among them. I find it difficult to consider the advancement in firearms was not predicted. This is a subject best left in the trash, telling voters we represent the constitution, while threatening to curtail the right to self-defense is ridiculous. Winning elections is hard enough without burdening our representatives with this bologna.

Just look at the first amendment. No law abridging freedom of speech, etc.

And yet, you can't defame, you can't threaten, you can't incite panic or riot, you can't defraud, you can't commit treason, you can't lie in certain official situations, etc.

Tons of restrictions on freedom of speech because the constitution has other objectives that must be balanced against freedom of speech.


Same goes for the second amendment. The constitution is also about enduring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. There has to be some balance for that against an unfettered right to arm oneself to the teeth.

If it's too dangerous to simple beboutvin public because some gun nut might go around shooting people for no good reason, then the government has a responsibility to address that.

The second amendment must be respected, but that doesn't mean we can't have reasonable restrictions, same as we have reasonable restrictions on free speech.

Most people could only afford one. When a (male) child came of age the family might get another gun so he could hunt or stand guard against hostile forces.