I think the concept is that the second amendment was aimed at making sure that people (like themselves) could resist when the government tried to enforce unacceptable laws by using armies. The amendment specifies militias- like the men who fought the British Army at Lexington and Concord. The American Revolution was an armed rebellion. Thus, the second amendment was not to protect your home from cat burglars, but from armies.
At that time, the armies were men with rifles and bayonets, and sometimes cannons. In honesty, since the army now fights wars with weapons that cost millions of dollars each, the army is not powered by the infantry and cannot be resisted with weapons you can keep in your home. No matter how much you have, the military will have more. And these days, when they buy a bigger, shinier toy, they sell off their old ones to the police, so THEY have bigger weapons than home-owners can have. Millions of Americans have the AR-15, a semi automatic (one shot per trigger pull), against true military weaponry we are smears on the pavement, if they don’t choose to use explosives. So the quote is not applicable. While it is legal to have an AK 47 in the USA, it must be modified so that it is, in fact, NOT a “machine gun”, it cannot be automatic, but semi-automatic. These laws have been in place for decades.
I do believe that it is reasonable to have background checks, proficiency checks, inspections, that firearms should be stored safely, pretty much what goes for automobiles. I don’t believe that these laws will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, or people who get so upset or are so filled with hate that they misuse them. Won’t happen. I also don’t think that whatever the framers of the Bill of Rights intended, that we have a snowball’s chance in hell of resisting the government with firepower. The only chance we have to protect our rights are working together in great numbers and denying attempts by the government to change the laws in ways we don’t like.
Sadly, a LOT people are made very uncomfortable about some of the changes that are happening in the modern world. They would rather have Jim Crow Laws, and anti-Gay laws. They want the right to maximize their profits even if it means others starve or people or the environment is injured. That’s why we have government, to protect the rights of those without power.
I don’t think that an armed civilian force will scare the military industrial complex into rational behavior. Had the Jews shot back and not been willing to go into the Ghettos, could they have avoided the Holocaust? I doubt it. I think that they would have had the media convince most people that they were dangerous and would have been killed more quickly. This issue is a smoke screen. Like so many other political arguments we should look past it and look at what the real issues are.
People die when people are allowed- even encouraged to hate. If there were no bullets, they’d use machetes- like they did in Ruanda. Let’s work on the hate, not the style of guns.