If you choose to read this article – I neither encourage nor discourage it – consider what the author says in full. After reading it, come back and reread the below that I copied and pasted from the article. Perhaps you might agree that in the author’s explanation for the “need” of the Second Amendment, it is substantiated by all the claims that he makes in attempts to vilify it, even resorting to place racism at the foundation of the Second Amendment.
Is the author suggesting that it wasn’t until AFTER the United States formed a government military that we were no longer free and secure? I don’t think the author sees what he wrote in this manner but consider what he did say. It would be my opinion that this author is one who “trusts” his government and turns to his government for all his needs. When that is the case, then how he presents his case is from the position of what he was taught and how he has chosen to live his life of servitude.
If his claim is true that the real reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent creation of a professional army, i.e. the law enforcement branch of the Government, because giving government the power over the people historically proved the loss of being free and secure to the people, then this author misses his own point or errs in presenting a poor one.
Perhaps he is blinded by his own anger and hatred.
Preventing the United States from starting a professional army, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. It is hard to recapture this fear today, but during the 18th century few boogeymen were as scary as the standing army — an army made up of professional, full-time soldiers.
By the logic of the 18th century, any society with a professional army could never be truly free. The men in charge of that army could order it to attack the citizens themselves, who, unarmed and unorganized, would be unable to fight back. This was why a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state: To be secure, a society needed to be able to defend itself; to be free, it could not exist merely at the whim of a standing army and its generals.
The only way to be both free and secure was for citizens to be armed, organized and ready to defend their society. The choice was a stark one: a standing army or a free nation.
