Was freedom to bear arms the right to hunt, kill crazy people, or defend yourself from a corrupt government?

Question

Did the people on the frontier actually NEED a law that protected their right to hunt for their food or fight off thieves/robbers?

Why did they need a law then keeping government from infringing on those inherit rights, other than to defend oneself from a corruptable government?

Answer 1

Answer: YES! Hamilton explained the need for armed citizens to be a power to equip and rival any government force.

Answer 2

Look at part of the phrasing in the 2nd Amendment =
"....being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people....".

The goal is very clear -- to ensure the security and freedom of the states, and thus the people. From there, the different opinions are whether the people or the state as a whole come first.

The problem is -- the shift in weapons technology over the past century has made that goal unattainable -- as private individuals, we have nowhere near the firepower necessary to defend against our own military. Even at the rate of one gun per person (which are are rapidly approaching) -- the sheer firepower available from bombs and tanks and attack helicopters makes our possession of handguns largely ineffectual if our own military actually tried to impose a coup.

So, while it was the goal -- it cannot be the primary reason now to interpret the text -- because as a goal, it's not attainable.

Answer 3

Yes. That's my job. I'm a US Citizen, and my first duty is to the Constitution. The purpose of the Federal government is to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Should it fail to do so, then it becomes the enemy, and can, and should, be eliminated. The nifty thing about the American Constitution is that the Government cannot take away rights, because it never gave out rights in the first place. A generic "god" gave us rights, hence, no human or tyrant can ever take them away. The sovereignty and legitimacy of a government is strictly derived by the governed according to the basic principles of American culture. This, in turn, derives from the principles of John Locke, the Founders, the Dutch Republic's experience, and even the democracies of ancient Germanic, Greek, and Latin tribes. There is a lot of history here, and it's going to take a lot of tyrannical force to sweep freedom away. Anyone in the US government who pushes for martial law had better have damn good reason, and I assure you they will be held accountable. Or else...

Answer 4

freedom bear arms hunt kill crazy people defend corrupt government

Answer 5

There are no freedoms to bear arms in the US. You'd do well to read not only the second amendment but the many court rulings regarding it.

Answer 6

Although nobody wants to admit it, the purpose of the right to bear arms is to be able to stop the government from imposing itself unlawfully on us.

Answer 7

Yes.
Yes.
Because government is soulless and inherently evil.

Answer 8

to keep the government from becoming what the liberals want.I government without fear of it's citizenry is a dictatorship.

Answer 9

A armed populist is harder to control.

Answer 10

all the above!