The Constitution Was Not Written With Common Sense in Mind

As the ink dried on the Constitution some good honest men went to bed oblivious to the fact that the left a fatal flaw in its design.  As good honest men these leaders did not fear the people.  How could or should they?  A citizen with a rifle was no threat to the founders since they were serving the interest of the people.  Could it be they thought this would always be the case?  Could they have thought that the government would always be in the people's corner?  A closer look reveals they did not think this.  A clause (paraphrased) reads that when a government becomes tyrannical the people have the duty and right to abolish that government.  So they did conceive that a government could turn on its people.  How then is it that the second amendment is so poorly thought out?

Most anti and some pro gun folks hawk on the word "militia" that pops up in the phrasing.  Militias weren't considered bad or evil by the founders; Ben Franklin even helped set one up.  Again, good honest men needn't fear an armed populace.  Militias usually operated with little to no government oversight or intrusion-in fact they were to work in tandem with the official army if need be.  Government has since broken away from that ideal.  The volunteer army stands apart from any and all civilian militias.  The closest thing we have is the national guard and again they are more or less a government force.  Furthermore the government monitors, raids, arrests, and even conducts sting operations on militias.  So in essence if I were to follow this amendment to a tee I would surrender some rights to gain one.  This is backwards thinking.  So if the founders envisioned the possibility of a corrupt government why then are there not stipulations or restrictions for government intrusion on militias?

Another curious thing I have noticed is that due to government intrusion and meddling a lot of gun manufacturers are fleeing their home states and seeking more gun friendly ground.  How is this possible?  I thought "shall not be infringed" was pretty clear?  Well it is but unfortunately that's the only protection we get. It doesn't say "...and if a government body does infringe on this right the people need to ignore the regulations and the lawmaker should be jailed for seven years."  There is zero repercussion or punishments listed for the violation of our rights...any and all of them. The most we get is some people scream that it is unconstitutional but the government keeps on truckin'.  Asking or expecting the government to stay out of an issue that was designed to restrict it's powers and protect the people from physical abuse is asinine.  We have guns to protect ourselves from tyranny, any encroachment on gun rights is considered tyranny, please government let us arm ourselves to keep you in check.  The founders expected them to just sit out?  It's like giving your car keys to a drunk guy and saying "Don't get in this car...I mean it-don't do it."

If you look at gun rights it is the most regulated monitored and scrutinized rights we have.  Indeed it is treated like a privilege at this point.  The government doesnt say we have to limit our word count on books or that I am only allowed X amount of time of free speech per day.  I suppose the ultimate fail safe switch was/is the will of the people to endure encroachments and violations.  After all it isn't the weapon it is the man who does the fighting.