zlacker

If the Second Amendment (2A) meant to preserve the ability to overthrow the government then why can we not have bombs and tanks?

And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?

Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all?

No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.

>>paulry+(OP)
Did they fear a national army? Legitimately curious here. They certainly couldn't afford one, but military-lead coups weren't the problem then that they are today (or were during the Roman empire).

Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.

>>paulry+(OP)
"And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?"

It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."