[aldo_14]

surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?

Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition.  They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside.  Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.

The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow?  Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?

I'm not sure what your point is.  The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document.  What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?

[Nuclear1]

surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?

Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition.  They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside.  Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.

The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow?  Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?

I'm not sure what your point is.  The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document.  What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?

But the situation hasn't really changed all that drastically since the day of the Founders.  Standing armies can still pose a threat to a population's security and liberty.  The decentralization of the military as intended by the formation of a militia and the peoples' rights to keep and bear arms is the backbone of the Second Amendment.  The Founders and Framers had just come off of a revolution that had been accomplished through arms, so they would have best understood the necessity of the people to be armed rather than allow the government to have a monopoly on arms in a professional standing army.

The situation is still applicable today.  Violent revolutions by armed citizens against governments aren't uncommon, and cases such as Vietnam and current-day Iraq show that average citizens armed with even basic weapons can stand up to professional, modernized armies.  The Second Amendment protects the citizens' collection of weapons to overthrow the government as a last resort, however; the Constitution provides for so many other peaceful measures to alter the government (through the Amendment process and elections, mostly) that violent revolution may not be necessary.

[Janos]

surely if you want to interpret the constitution you need to decipher the meanings & context of the words within?

Whats to understand about the context in which the constitution was written?
The people who wrote it were just secured in power, through no small part, by armed citizens bearing personal weapons and ammunition.  They knew these people would be useful in fending off future attacks, from inside or outside.  Its been a factor in US security as recently as WW2.

The founders could not have imagined how powerful the US would be today... but likewise, how can you say with any assurance where we will be tomorrow?  Why thin out your own rights to the favor of politicians and foreigners that wont have to live with the effects?

I'm not sure what your point is.  The inclusion of the right to bear arms was made for a specific purpose, and with the changes to both the social, political, economic, global, etc nature of the US since then it's only natural that the literal interpretation may not be within the actual spirit of the constitution, particularly if you are attempting to justify rigid adherance to said document.  What I mean is, surely in order to understand what the constitution means, you have to know how, where, when, why, etc it was written and thus the meaning that the writers ascribed to the words therein?

It doesn't really matter what the founders thought, what matters is what it says in the constitution.