[PilotMan]

I read an piece from a historian who put the 2A into historical context. A standing national army was not a thing, and what was there, wasn't strong enough to defend the entire newly founded country of the USA. Therefore there was a need for a strong reliance on localized militias who could be formed up on notice and provide a mechanism for the defense of the country.

The framers reference the tyranny of government, mostly in reference to the former status of the US and it's relationship as a colony of England. The entire survival of the US depended on it remaining free on it's own, and defensible from foreign invaders. The need for citizens to maintain weapons was for the defense of the country and the preservation of it's status as an independent and free country.

At no time did the framers ever intend that the people should keep massive stockpiles of weapons, so they could use them against their own government. In this correct context, guns for self protection are understandable and expected, but unlimited unregulated guns or ammo are not. Arming citizens for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia is the standard. Underneath that, there are long, long lists of acceptable regulations that will not limit self protection or violate the 2nd Amendment.