The Framers argued that the militia would be safe from tyranny, not a police force against it

[Ohioboy]

If you read the Federalist Papers, the main discussion was always about using the "well regulated" militia for defense of the new nation. It was not about having armed people constantly looking for tyranny. There is a difference.

The idea was that the militia would be safe from tyranny because it would be made up of the people, the governed, therefore they would not turn against their own countrymen and harm "liberty" should a leader ever try to use the militia for tyranny. In other words, The Founders argued that militias could not easily be used as a way of spreading tyranny. That is all. They didn't promote the idea that militias were to be constantly looking for a fight against tyranny.

Nowadays, the average 2nd Amendment gun hump has twisted things to the point where they are constantly looking for tyranny that doesn't even exist. They use the 2nd Amendment to justify the idea that they must be armed to the hilt at all times because the Founders told them to be. This is not only wrong, but very dangerous. All it would take is the right con man to come along and convince them it's time to start shooting their fellow Americans in the name of fighting tyranny, maybe it could even be some idiot that thought his election was stolen. Who knows?

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew what a ticking time bomb the 2nd Amendment has been turned into by the gun humps of this country.

That's my opinion based on what I've read from the framers of the Constitution.

[sop]

1. Gun humps also have the mistaken notion "well-regulated" means self-regulated.

"Well-regulated militias" are to be regulated by government. Otherwise they're just armed mobs.

[Ohioboy]

2. Basically a mob waiting for a leader

A rather dangerous situation when you think about it.