One difficulty in talking about the Second Amendment and laws regulating firearms is the degree to which some of the parties have become captivated by fantasies.
I have seen a citizen interpret the Second Amendment to be a guarantee that when the people find their government oppressive, they are entitled to possess weaponry to rise up against it. (This is not as uncommon a belief as you might think.)
It is an interesting government that would write into its founding document a provision for armed insurrection against itself.
If you were curious about what the Founders would have thought of such a view, you might consider the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1791, farmers in western Pennsylvania rose up in resistance to a new tax on whiskey, which they found onerous and oppressive.
The response: President Washington himself rode into western Pennsylvania at the head of a force of 13,000, the militia(!) provided for in the Second Amendment, to suppress the rebellion.
Let me suggest that the Red Dawn, black-helicopter interpretation of the Second Amendment will not contribute useful political discourse.
