The Bill of Rights was presented for ratification on September 25 of 1789. In France, the Bastille was stormed in July of 1789, and the Reign of Terror didn't start until the Republic was declared in September of 1792, so I doubt there was a lot of cause-and-effect involved in the initial writing of the amendments.

It is clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers that they preferred a citizen militia over a standing army, but this was in the age when the ultimate weapon was a mule-drawn cannon. I'm not sure how that could possibly be translated to modern times. I'm visualizing each neighborhood with an armory containing one (1) M-1 tank to be pulled out at need. Hell, maybe that would work. Okay, now for the nuclear missiles...oops.

Radical libertarians--I'm not one--see no problem with individuals having the right to possess ANY weapon. At some point I think this gets a bit silly when discussing weapons of mass destruction like nuclear warheads. Barring such silliness, I would still probably be more lenient than most. Theoretically, I would have no problem with a responsible citizen possessing an antitank weapon, as an extreme example, which makes most liberals I talk to pee down their leg.

("What if he decides to blow up your car?"

"Heck, what if he decides to take a match, sneak over in the middle of the night, and burn up my car?")

All that aside, I think our current solution: a professional army under the control of a civilian government and a civilian commander-in-chief, is probably best. With reasonable arms in possession of reasonable people.