After seeing the letter dealing with why the founding fathers did not anticipate anyone owning more than a single-shot musket, I have to wonder, does this apply to rest of our society? Ballpoint pens did not exist at that time nor was there any hint that they might. Let's get rid of all ballpoint pens since they were not foreseen.
Since there was no motorized transportation we can do away anything more involved than horses and wagons. Electric lights did not exist so they should go, too. Our forefathers did not anticipate anything modern so we can't allow it.
If this sounds silly, that is because it is. Modern firearms are not the problem, it's those unwilling to learn from history that are the problem. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, the North American colonies were denied by British parliament their rights under the Magna Carta. Colonists no longer fit the definition of British citizens, and they lived under an oppressive British rule.
The parliament insisted that occupying soldiers protect us and that the colonists pay for it all. Taxation was out of control and the colonists had no recourse to protest it. British soldiers took over homes without permission and without compensation. Colonists had no rights to privacy or against self-incrimination. The British ruled, and the colonists were the cash cow.
Our Constitution was written to keep our government under control. The Supreme Court found that the phrase "well regulated militia" referred to the pool of "able-bodied men" who were available for conscription. They also reviewed state constitutions, commentary and case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or fishing or whatever people want it to mean. It was meant so that the common citizen was on an even foot with the standing army. That is why the Second Amendment exists. It is the equalizer that prevents people who think they are the elite from ruling the rest of us.
OK, after listening to Democrats telling Hillary what a wonderful job she did in the past and trying to put the blame on funding, Congress, etc. for the Benghazi attack, I, for one, still do not know the answer to the question asked by Senator McCain.
He asked: During the attack that lasted for over seven hours, what response did we take? We could have sent help via an airstrike. Of course, Hillary sidestepped the question because we did nothing for seven hours. Again the president and his band of liars covered up the situation as usual.
I, as an American, am ashamed of the hearing and still do not have an answer and most likely never will. Not only did she bring a notebook of canned answers, she also had a lady behind her wired for sound that would pass her a note on questions she was not prepared for. Why did we stand by for seven hours doing nothing to help Americans in harm's way?