Steve’s Barking; Does number 2 amendment to the constituent really mean freedom of citizens to own guns.

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.

 That is the exact verbiage of the second amendment. Now the first part of the sentence states right out front the reason.for the people to bear arms is because of the military. The is something even a third grader should understand. Now every Tom, Dick and Harriet looks as the second part of the sentence and says our founding fathers said that it is the right of all citizens to bear arms ( and the country has no right to limit the ownership of weapons,. Then these Tom , Dick and Harriet’s claim ( I have no idea were they came up with this, for all the history books I read it doesn’t say this) it is to keep the government honest and it’s a way to stop the government from overstepping it’s boundaries ( what ever that means) and stop the tyranny of government. 

 Now these persons ( and this is a humongous majority in the country) don’t explain the first part of the second amendment about the well regulated militia.

 Now I do recall from my history books there was a thing called Shay’s rebellion against the common wealth of Massachusetts and that the Massachusetts militia had to break into the armory to get weapons to fight the rebellion and the reason they had to break into the armory was because they couldn’t get in touch with the authorities in time. 

 Well perhaps that’s why we have the second amendment?

*************************************************************************************

 Do those who believe that the second amendment believe that the people have the right to use the guns against the national guard because it might just be tyranny of the federal government.

I think not. They don’t believe that the government sending in the National Guard were they weren’t ask too is tyranny in all probability.