Our forefathers knew this thus “a well regulated militia being necessary......”. We are just a bunch of guys with guns. Sorry to say this.
It's one thing to plan for the worst, it's quite another to be an unthinking pessimist ready to roll over in submission.
“We are just a bunch of guys with guns. Sorry to say this. “
I think we are a bit more than that. We may not be a regulated militia with infrastructure, but we know what infrastructure is and should be. Such things are actually outlawed in most States but should all Hell break loose then those rules no longer apply and I think you would see our capabilities come to bear very quickly. There are millions of us that are extremely well trained and professionals at what we do. That regulated militia would happen very quickly and i think you’ll be surprised by how well equipped it is.
Go back and read the Federalist Papers.
In the vernacular of the day, at least according to my ancient English Dictionary (ca 1814--George III's son was Regent), "Militia" meant: 'The Army, in it's entirety'. "Regulated" meant: 'Controlled'. As in the sort of control any regulator, whether law enforcement or a device limiting the flow or pressure of a fluid exerts.
Controlling the Army was indeed essential to the Security of a free state, without such control, there was nothing to guarantee that the Army would not take over.
During the discussion of whether there should be a standing Federal Army, and if so, how large, the concept was that the State Militias (armies) would be the first line of defense against the Federal Army getting out of line, and failing that, the preponderance of the citizenry with arms (even lacking martial training) would prevail.
Keep in mind these were men who had fought a largely military government in the years prior, and who did not trust the organs of power to only a few.
Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Then they went on to deal with a related matter: quartering troops in private homes (Third Amendment).