“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.
“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.”
Which is the “dirty little secret” of the Miller ruling in 1939 which is always ignored by the gun-grabbers. The Miller ruling said that the members of the militia (i.e., the people) were expected to show up with guns supplied by themselves, guns of the type that were in common usage by the military of the time. The actual ruling of the Miller case was that a sawed-off shotgun was not a typical military arm, and thus was not protected by the Second Amendment. It didn’t rule that the people had no individual right to keep and bear arms.