But, protected from what? Is it likely they thought the people in a country built on freedom of the individual needed protection from themselves?

Did they think individuals would begin infringing upon the rights of others to the degree that certain rights would be essentially removed, ignored, or modified to other than what they intended when writing and amending the US Constitution?

Abraham Lincoln, in one of the most famous speeches of all time, the Gettyberg Address, stated: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

And, in conclusion: ".....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln clearly thought of the Civil War as a test for whether or not such a nation could survive, whether a nation conceived in liberty could continue as established.

George Washington never agreed with the power being given to a very few in comparison to the population as a whole (now 2 ten-thousandths of 1 percent) . He pleaded that constant vigilance be kept over the Congress of the United States.

Washington knew power corrupts and, without vigilance, absolute power would be the result, a state in which absolute corruption of the Constitution would take place. Liberty would be sacrificed.

What has been the result of our lack of vigilance? One of the rights we have is delineated by the Second Amendment, which states: "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."

What exactly is stated in this amendment? Not being an attorney, or a leading politician, or an "expert" on Constitutional law, I must respond as I am, a citizen of this nation with a written document to protect my liberties.

What this admendment means to me is our forefathers knew we must retain the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect the security of the rights of the individual. You see, ‘free State" means the state of being free, of preserving our liberties.

It does not mean the freedom of a state or states. Afterall, a ‘state, as in Missouri, or Virginia, or one of the others, is nothing more than a specific geographical area inhabited by a group of people.

In order to control people, in order to establish additional control over people, every totalitarian government we are well-aware of has established control over firearms. After all, who could fight back without firearms to do so?

Our government, one some people mistakenly think of as ‘of the people, for the people, and by the people’, is now attempting to get greater and greater control over firearms. The end in inevitable, complete control.

Who has weapons and what type? Who do we (meaning the government) go to when we want to start taking weapons (probably be in the guise at first of keeping in a centralized area, such as the system we military guys had forced on us when living in barracks)? Thus, gun registration laws.

Of course, this is logical. It eases the task of picking up weapons or demanding they be turned in.

In establishing complete gun control and control of the population, then it is also necessary for a government intent on complete rule of the people to know exactly where the most outraged people are and any following they might have. How can a government do that?

Modern technology has made it quite easy. Through biometrics under the premise of ‘for the children’ (you know, dead-beat dads’), the government will be able to track each of us. We will not be able to hide from them.

Any person at any time of day or night will be located through chips on driver’s licenses, implants in the body(could easily be done at birth unknown to the parents.

Communications are already tapped into on a regular basis by the government. Surveillance of malcontents (to them, otherwise, libertarians and loyalists) is electonically accomplished now.

Between the two, the right to assemble will amount to nothing more than the means of the government locating and taking out the opposition in one fell swoop, just as the Natzi’s did in Germany.

The government right now, since I am writing while ‘online’, could very well be monitoring what I am writing. For certain, with the number of articles and letters I have sent to members of Congress, my emails are likely monitored just as yours are if you write any anti-government material.

The type of monitoring and surveillance being done at this time in our history, is an invasion of privacy which could eventually impose the lack of freedom of speech on each of us who writes in opposition of our government's and various politicians' activities'.

In order to better determine individuals who are potentially capable of defending their constitutional rights in the extreme, it is also important for the government to know exactly who is spending money and on what.

Thus, under the guise of KYC, the banking 'Know Your Customers', proposals, the government will be keyed to aspects of the individual that should be completely private, where he spends his money and on what, along with patterns of normal spending.

This legislation, which will ultimately be put in operation, is being done under the guise of detecting criminal activities. Two of the keys that will be watched for are large deposits or large withdrawals. Once in effect nation wide, the banking industry will notify the government of any unusual patterns of banking.

Let’s say you sell a car for $4,000 and deposit the cash. Guess what? Our government will assume you deal in drugs or some other illegal activity and come after you.

You will then be forced to prove your innocence. Our judicial premise, that all citizens are presumed innocent will be done away with, just as it now is in such things as spot highway checks.

The amount of cash to be dealt with maybe as little as $100. If more cash is withdrawn or deposited, banks will required to report it. Then, the person will have to prove other than criminal intent to the federal government.

If a gun, as an example, was purchased from an individual for cash, then the government will know and have it in their records.

Sound like fantasy-land to you? If you care to be outraged by the results of actions based on the potential of criminal intent or actions, read the information on the State of Louisiana and its so-called ‘war against drugs’.

Louisiana law-enforcement operated the most disgusting, sickening violation of human legal rights as outlined in our Constitution, its amendments, and our legal statutes that has ever existed in this nation.

Innocent people traveling through the state were damaged for life, their money, their property taken (actually stolen) by cops (with every negative connotation possible), prosecuting attorneys, and judges. And, all in the name of fighting the war against drugs, the same basis our federal government is pushing while pursuing national ID's.

Social security numbers and income taxation, along with the above, are not being used properly. As far as taxes go, personal income tax is against the Constitution of the United States and citizens do not have to have a social security number or even qualify for one in most cases.

But, we have let it go on because of our apathy and ignorance of the Constitution and interpretations of social security regulations, along with a government that operates more with secret agendas than it does overtly.

To answer my question. What do we now need protected from? Our own federal government.

It has its agenda and you can be assured - it is not to protect your rights nor to detect criminal activities. Its clear intent is to gain total, absolute (totalitarian) control over each and every one of us.

You may think of me as an alarmist but, before you do, check out the history of totalitarian governments, how liberties were removed, and the methodologies of maintaining such governments. And, keep in mind the tremendous increases in technological knowledge that now is capable of invading our lives.

Next, list every anti-Constitutional bit of legislation which has removed rights (or modified them beyond recognition) from our people in this century along with those that are in the process of being affected.

Then, consider whether this is "the land of the free" or rather the "land of the few", whether our Republic has indeed endured.

Hopefully, it has remained the "home of the brave" because that is what it will take, I fear, to re-instate and for all time, preserve our God-given liberties.