What is the meaning of "militia" in the second amendment?

[candycorn]

OP confuses organized militia from unorganized militia, a doctrine that would develop over time.

OP is living in 1788.

A few phone calls to a few of my friends and I've just organized a militia.

That good enough for you knee jerk, constitution hating, leftist reactionists?

The amendment says "well regulated militia". So no.

Secondly, you don't have any friends.

 

[danielpalos]

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

Any unorganized militia must comply with the law of the land or have troops sent to snuff it out

That doesn't answer the question

Yes, it does.

 

[danielpalos]

Shay's Rebellion ring a well Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority ofelected officials who were appointed officers.

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

 

[LOki]

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

Not in your case. My bad, that wasn't fair, you are Canadian after all

 

[danielpalos]

I love jumping in on the last part of a thread, having read none of it, especially when it's a simple question, and I know the answer.

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.

The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry.

The 2nd amendment is not the reason people should be allowed to carry weapons.

I support open carry, and think citizens should be allowed to keep any type of hand carried armaments.

What I would exclude are arms that allow you to shoot something out of your line of direct sight, or shoot explosives.

dime-store historians and academics are always welcome...

Welcome

The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The security of a free State of a collective of the People.

 

[kaz]

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

He's Canadian you know

 

[LOki]

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

He's Canadian you know

That doesn't explain why he's retarded.

 

[kaz]

I love jumping in on the last part of a thread, having read none of it, especially when it's a simple question, and I know the answer.

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.

The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry.

The 2nd amendment is not the reason people should be allowed to carry weapons.

I support open carry, and think citizens should be allowed to keep any type of hand carried armaments.

What I would exclude are arms that allow you to shoot something out of your line of direct sight, or shoot explosives.

dime-store historians and academics are always welcome...

Welcome

The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The security of a free State of a collective of the People.

Not in this case, you're fighting for the security of a State from it's people

 

[kaz]

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

He's Canadian you know

That doesn't explain why he's retarded.

I thought it did, never mind then...

 

[danielpalos]

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

Still nothing but repeal by way of fallacy; I got it, Person on the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Dear, the Intent and Purpose for that right is in the first clause. It is the right that usually doesn't make any sense.

Not in your case. My bad, that wasn't fair, you are Canadian after all

Nothing but stereotype, chic? Where is my individual evaluation from each and every one of you; or, should mostly nice guys And the Marines continue to complain, they can't seem to be able to find a few good women.

 

[danielpalos]

I love jumping in on the last part of a thread, having read none of it, especially when it's a simple question, and I know the answer.

A well regulated militia, in 1790, would include cannon, horses, muskets, and swords.

Militias were intended to allow frontier communities to fend off Indians, the Spanish, or anyone else who would interfere with manifest destiny.

It was debated whether or not centrally locating the ordinance was wise, and decided against.

The freedom to own arms for personal protection wasn't part of the conversation, because every home had them, by necessity.

The original intent behind the second amendment does not address whether or not Americans today should be able to possess entirely unrestricted military equipment. Nor does it do anything to support the idea that racist redneck crackpots, or street gang members, should be able to conceal or open carry.

The 2nd amendment is not the reason people should be allowed to carry weapons.

I support open carry, and think citizens should be allowed to keep any type of hand carried armaments.

What I would exclude are arms that allow you to shoot something out of your line of direct sight, or shoot explosives.

dime-store historians and academics are always welcome...

Welcome

The right to carry arms is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The security of a free State of a collective of the People.

Not in this case, you're fighting for the security of a State from it's people

What right wing think tank came up with that propaganda and rhetoric?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Shay's Rebellion ring a well Watson?

"The uprising in Massachusetts began in the summer of 1786. The rebels tried to capture the federal arsenal at Springfield and harassed leading merchants, lawyers, and supporters of the state government. The state militia, commanded by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in several engagements in the winter of 1787. Shays and the other principal figures of the rebellion fled first toRhode Island and then to Vermont.

"Although it never seriously threatened the stability of the United States, Shays’ Rebellion greatly alarmed politicians throughout the nation. Proponents of constitutional reform at the national level cited the rebellion as justification for revision or replacement of the Articles of Confederation, and Shays’ Rebellion figured prominently in the debates over the framing and ratification of the Constitution."

An unbiased mind can look at this incident and understand the vast difference between a bunch of malcontents and the National Guard. The former are the disorganized militia, a legal fiction, having no authority and no chain of command vis a vis a well trained military force acting within the law, trained and under the authority ofelected officials who were appointed officers.

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I see your point. The founders were terrified that government would take away it's own guns. So the bill of rights is actually 9 rights for citizens and one right of government. They wanted to make sure government wouldn't give up its guns, that would be such a threat to liberty

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

No. Did I say that? No I did not.

I really fucking hate it when people start responding to what they think people are saying, rather than what is being said.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

"the militia" is simple. It's what's written in Article 1 Section 8.

The militia is merely an organisation that can be called up into federal service, has officers appointed by the state etc.

It is not just people who choose to get together armed. That would be dangerous and the Supreme Court has ruled this is not the case anyway.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

No. Did I say that? No I did not.

I really fucking hate it when people start responding to what they think people are saying, rather than what is being said.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

You mean arms, for that is what a gun is, as well as the other weapons of war (there is no mention of guns, per se, in the Second). The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so. Funny***, how the right wingers like you believe Heller is an absolute truth and the 5-4 vote on Obamacare isn't.

***Funny is used ironically in this case to describe the hypocrisy of you crazy right wingers.

 

[kaz]

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

No. Did I say that? No I did not.

I really fucking hate it when people start responding to what they think people are saying, rather than what is being said.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So in the middle of the bill of rights, the founders decided to throw in a right of government? Why do you suppose the founders were afraid government was going to take it's own guns away exactly?

No. Did I say that? No I did not.

I really fucking hate it when people start responding to what they think people are saying, rather than what is being said.

You never said what you said. You said the officers are appointed by the State, anyone can't just do it, but it's not a power of government? What power do the people have in that?

Why would the founders have bothered putting in that government can lead and call on citizens to defend the government? Why would they have felt that was necessary? And why did they write all the time about the right of the people to be armed if that isn't what they meant?

What you think I said was the RIGHT was for the government. Either that or you wrote extremely badly.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the militia in the 2A is the militia that has officers appointed to it.

Two totally different things.

Here's the deal.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power.... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Firstly, "the" is the definite article. It means there is only one (or one group). It is not "a Militia", it is "the Militia".

Second. This article provide CONGRESS the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia. However the militia will have its officers appointed by the states and they train according to what Congress says.

Where you got your knickers in a twist was you made some assumption that I was calling the RKBA a collective right. I didn't say that and I don't say that. This article has sweet fuck all to do with the 2A.

However, the 2A says:

"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."

It starts with "A well regulated militia....." this is just general statement that a well regulated militia is great for the security of a state which is free. Where it comes into play is that the Right to Bear Arms is the right to be in "the Militia" as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The right has to be individual, because it is individuals who are going to actually be in the Militia. The US govt CANNOT stop an individual, before due process, from being in the militia. What the US govt CAN do is make the militia an unorganized militia and essentially make it a waste of time while the main militia is the National Guard.

So can an "unorganized militia" have guns or does the government decide that?

You mean arms, for that is what a gun is, as well as the other weapons of war (there is no mention of guns, per se, in the Second). The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so. Funny***, how the right wingers like you believe Heller is an absolute truth and the 5-4 vote on Obamacare isn't.

***Funny is used ironically in this case to describe the hypocrisy of you crazy right wingers.

Yes , you Republicans are whacked out, you need to gain some sanity, crazy ring winger.

And yeah, wow, where did we get the idea the bill of rights contained individual rights? Was that a senior moment or what?

 

[danielpalos]

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

Perhaps, you should read up on cause of our Civil War.

 

[LOki]

The Second has only been an individual right since Scalia and his four pals on the Supreme Court voted by a single vote to make it so.

Nonsense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No you see what you want to see, a sure sign of willful ignorance.

Once again, you post zero content. The National Guard is government, Skippy. Why did they bother putting in a right of the government to have a military unit in the bill of rights? What where they trying to accomplish exactly?

Once again you fail to grasp the meaning of a word you use: "content"

I understand it fine. If you had any content, you'd have addressed the question. Why would the founding fathers give government the right to have guns in the bill of rights? How does that make any sense?

Because they shunned a standing national army and the threat imposed by Native Americans and the British continued, and they had learned the boot of government could be kept at bay if the military power remained under the control of the citizens of the several states.

Remember, the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and most of the the founders understood a stronger federal government was necessary but risky, so power granted to the Federal Government was limited, as the states controlled the armories and the state militia.

It was as much of COTUS was a compromise, and until Heller was understood to be States Right and not an individual one.

None of that clarifies what right they were protecting. Why would they be worried about the government preventing itself from having guns?

You're putting a spin on something I didn't post - Art. I, sec 8 clause one gives the Congress the power to "provide for the common defence","to raise and support armies (clause 12), "to provide and maintain a Navy" (clause 13) and to "make the rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces (clause 14).

Only someone who reads with the blinders of bias would infer these statements in Art. I Sec. 8 describe Federal Activities which would not by their nature include weapons of war!