The Second Amendment was written so the States could raise militias to fight Indians and protect state governments from rebellions BY their own citizens. Read it.

"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."

Its the security of the STATE that is being guaranteed, not that of the citizens.

That initial clause tells you exactly why that amendment is there, it isn't necessary to speculate on the state of mind of the founders--not that it matters. The law depends on what they wrote, not what we believe they might have been thinking. Any ambiguity in the wording is probably deliberate.

Muzzle loading firearms, particularly muskets, were not as suitable for criminal activity or general mayhem as modern repeating cartridge weapons, they required considerable skill to use, were extremely expensive, and could only be fired once a minute, when it wasn't raining. They made military sense only when used in volley fire by organized troops, even if they were irregular militias.

The "fight the Fed" interpretation is a redneck fantasy arising primarily from the infantile delusions of rural Southerners terrified the freed slaves are coming back to get their revenge.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have INTERPRETED the second amendment as a guarantee that all citizens have the right to own weapons. This is perfectly legitimate, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to interpret the law when there is controversy or disagreement about it. I can accept that, even though I don't agree with that interpretation, because it is the result of the constitutional process, which I am pledged to support.

But spare me the Minuteman crap. I know why I own guns, and shooting government tyrants is not the reason. And unlike Judge Napolitano, I don't claim to possess any time-traveling telepathy that allows me to pontificate on what the founders meant to say.