*poking my head back in after a weekend of festival*

I, too, was interested in Rapaire's post of pretty clear quotes from members of the "founding fathers". Those DO show not only the attitude of the times, but also reflect the situation this small, fledgling country found itself in in the mid-to-late 1700s.
Given those parameters, I am not a bit surprised to see the 2nd amendment reading as it does. They actually needed for most able-bodied men (and some of the women) to be able to help defend the community & state, as well as hunt and defend their own family & property. There were few organized police forces and no instant communication to alert what officials they did have.
   It made sense to have firearms, primitive as they were, to pursue freedom & protect a way of life.


Yes...you know what I'm going to say...*smile*:

The situation has changed in 250 years, not only in the status of the 'state', but in the types and power of firearms. Where once they were used primarily for hunting and protection, they are now ubiquitous as items to aid in crime...at many levels... as well as suicides and in accidents. In 1770, there were very few decent hand guns... now they are for sale on many street corners.

Add a dozen paragraphs here about the results of all these changes, then extrapolate why I and others believe the 2nd amendment is well overdue for modification & clarification.

(In 1903, there were few restrictions on operating a motor vehicle, either... and no ideas about seat belts and emissions...times and concerns DO change!)