The Second Amendment

Unlike what Ben Shapiro said on Piers Morgan recently, the second amendment is not there to enable us to rise up against tyranny   It's true many founding father felt an armed public is good for this, the document in question, the US Constitution, does not at all specify this.  Indeed, it defines such an action as TREASON, and does not even bother to say, "unless the government has become tyrannical".  The US Government, and every employee, has to swear an oath to the Constitution, and the level of tyranny possible is limited only by the Constitution.  If it is impossible to have a tyranny without violating the constitution  then those oaths hold even in tyranny.

Here is the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In that sentence we see the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".  That phrase operates as a motivating context.  That implies there can be regulation with respect to the goal of this right being a "well regulated militia".  We have no such militia.  If we did, one could imagine you could own an assault rifle, and the government might even buy for you, if you were well trained as part of a well regulated, non-seditious, militia.  Without that, it's still clear that there is regulation mentioned in the very amendment   It is not the advocacy of something for it's own sake, as if guns were as directly good as say "liberty".

Keep in mind I support the second ammendment, I think American ought to be able to keep tanks and rocket launchers.  I live in a Republic which uses a Democratic device, and I'm in the minority on that.  I can deal with that, and perhaps America knows it's not mature enough to be trusted with such implements of destruction... but perhaps if they were part of a well regulated militia it would be better.