** The NRA and its apologists claim that the Second Amendment has to do with citizens having weapons to fight an oppressive government. But look at what is happening in the Middle East these days. The rebellions aren't armed conflicts - well, the rebels aren't armed anyway.
In order for citizen uprisings to have a chance at armed conflict they have to be as well equipped as the governments they are trying to combat. But this is never the case. Governments always have more and better guns, more and better-trained troops, better intelligence, etc. Even with a roomful of assault rifles, Mr. Joe Rebel will be no match against even one military tank, much less against one accompanied by a platoon of soldiers, helicopters, satellite communications and observations systems and the whole panoply of stuff we have empowered the government to own and operate on our behalf. After all, we want the most and the best armaments. So if, as Second Amendment evangelists claim, the Constitution allows the citizenry, as individuals, to be armed, it has set them up to be losers in any encounter with the government in power.
That's not the kind of thinking that imbues most of the rest of the constitution. Instead, if the Second Amendment is about local militias, as it clearly states, then it would seem to be providing for states, as governing entities, to defend themselves against small uprisings - maybe by people like today's gun hoarders. It's about states, not individuals. Individuals may be allowed to be armed, but to protect themselves against other individuals, not massed attacks such as would be part of a government's oppression.
In the Middle East, Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen so far, it is not "Second Amendment Remedies" that are working. It's the UNarmed populace taking to the streets, with the aid of the social media.
Face it, people want guns because they're afraid of other people with guns - but only a few people, not whole armies. Their Constitutional arguments don't really address this basic fear.
