Yes, it does mean a right to firearms. That was the whole point, considering a well-regulated militia without firearms is essentially useless. The use
of ammunition goes hand-in-hand with firearms as well. It is all about the INTENT of the amendment, which was to ensure that the civilian population
had a means to defend themselves from their own government.
What some people forget is that all the rights given to the people were hard-won, and much blood had to be spilled to acquire them, and that the
Founding Fathers realized they could either rely on the goodwill of the politicians to ensure that the rights of the people were maintained, or they
could allow the citizenry to be armed, meaning that if their own government attempted to tread on the rights of the populace then that populace had a
means to be heard. This was what the entire American Revolution was built upon- a people who felt their rights were being violated, so of course they
realized that measures needed to be taken to ensure that the people could always force change when it was not possible any other way. It is as simple
as that really. Because there is absolutely nothing the citizenry can do if their government attempts to take their rights away, short of using force.
The government is the body with the military and all of the resources, and if enough people are willing to risk their lives for change, then that
change is very likely to be necessary, since the majority will not take such measures for transient reasons. If that were the case, the majority would
have risen up at the first sign of their rights disappearing. And rights have been slowly disintegrating over time.
I firmly believe that the use of force is absolutely necessary for maintaining a democratic state. People will argue that there are safeguards in
place to ensure against despotism, but this is an utter lie. Just look at things like the bank bailouts, the NSA spying program, among all of the
other times the rights of the people have been infringed upon. Where are these supposed safeguards that make the use of force (firearms) obsolete? It
has been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that our government of the people and by the people is not for the people. There are many in positions
of power who have no qualms when it comes to infringing on our rights for their own personal benefit, or for the benefit of others who are in power.
This should be quite obvious to all. I also believe that the people would firmly be within their right to rise up against the government with the goal
of restoring any rights that have been lost. As I've said, there have already been times when our essential freedoms have been infringed upon, and I
think our Founding Fathers would have wanted the people to do something about it, rather than just to accept these measures.
It was in this same spirit that Franklin said "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." For God's sake people, if you would
just read all the written materials from our Founding Fathers, both the official and personal documents, which gives us the opportunity of getting
inside their thought process when it comes to our nation, what I say would be completely obvious. Those who disagree with the right to bear arms
completely disregard or ignore the intent of the amendment. These people say that there is no longer a need for having a safeguard against the
government, etc... But people have not changed at all, and there are still those who are taking our freedoms and liberties away as we speak. And it
will continue. The only reason that the people haven't had to rely on firearms in an effort to suppress the utterly rampant disregard for our rights
is for two reasons: first, the majority of the population does not care that their rights are being infringed upon, and second, things have not gotten
bad enough yet. When the everyday lives of the majority are amply affected, then the majority will be very glad that they still have the right to bear
arms. And the notion of defending your home, or anything else aside from holding the government accountable through the use of force, has no bearing
on the amendment in question. Thus those who argue against the right to bear arms by using those types of reasons are completely missing the
edit on 4/5/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/5/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason