Just trying to square the document with reality. Somewhere along the line we lost our rights to bear whatever arms we need to overthrow our government. Even the NRA doesn't seem interested in allowing that. So if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to keep government at bay through the threat of force and a bloody revolution every 200 years, how is that possible today?
There is the text and I am having a hard time seeing "overthrow the government" in those words. I know about some of the associated writings of the Founders such as "the tree of liberty requires blood", etc. but I don't see this Amendment as the source for government overthrow. It is, however, definitely not about hunting and that is the crux of the Zumbo matter.
Probably all started back when they banned cannons.
"So if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to keep government at bay through the threat of force and a bloody revolution every 200 years, how is that possible today?"
Do you really think the American military will ever agree to take on 80 million American firearm owners? Who would they bomb with their sophisticated weapons of mass destruction? Their own liberal infested cities? That'll create a lot of friends.
As long as there are firearms widely distributed amongst the population, the threat of force of a bloody revolution can exist. As long as that threat exists, the government is still basically responsible to answer to the people.
This is why there is such a strong apprehension to gun banning of any kind. It reduces the potential threat.
The odds looked much the same to a bunch of ragtag Colonists, farmers, merchants and such, facing the most powerful navy and one of the best equipped and trained armies in the world at the time. And only one third of the Colonists supported it with another third in support of the British.