Many Southerners were of Scottish background. The Scots had been fighting English oppression for centuries. England eventually beat down the Scots, and after the Act of Union in 1707 the English victors pretty mnuch tried to erase Scottish history and culture. The Disarmament Act of 1756 stripped the Scots’ right to keep and bear arms. The American descendants of those Scottish patriots remembered that disarmament very well, and vowed never to be subjected to the same oppressive conditions. Indeed, the Disarmament Act was well known to the American colonists in general. Hence, the insistence upon Second Amendment. Our Founding Fathers knew very well what an oppressive government could do, and they also knew that the only security The People had against such tyranny was to be armed.
Then why didn't the second amendment read, "An armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."?
The Founding Fathers discussed this and rejected it. An armed populate was useless without training, and training everyone was out of the question.
“Our Founding Fathers knew very well what an oppressive government could do, and they also knew that the only security The People had against such tyranny was to be armed.”
You make a good point, but things have changed considerably since the early days of our republic. Back then, a man could buy the same weaponry as the soldiers used—a musket or a rifle—and a citizenry so equipped would be in a position to put up a stout defense against a tyrannical government. But not anymore. Hunting rifles don’t let you effectively engage tanks and F-18’s. I think if a major purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government (which appears to be the case), then, logically, we should have the right to similar arms.