While I'm not quite as on board with this snatching assault weapons as some others are, that well regulated militia clause was more expected to keep the state secure from external threats rather than internal despotism. While the English Bill of Rights of 1689 of which the Second Amendment drew its influence from, did explicitly secure the right to be free from forceful disarmament by the state, the Founding Father's intended the checks and balances of the Federal Republic to keep domestic tyranny at bay, not the arming of its citizens. Mob rule scared the sh**t out of them, they didn't want the masses deciding to burn the system down willy-nilly because of some perceived repression.
Once we attained an organized military, there was no longer a need for a well-regulated militia. I'm all in favor of people wanting to arm themselves, and I'm even willing to grant them their right to be paranoid of government repression. But this whole self-aggrandizing narrative of patriotic duty by excessive self-armament is bogus.
Consider for a moment the fact the Brits had a organized military, yet the Founding Fathers took up arms against it. So, to say the 2nd Amendment only grants gun rights until the forming of a organized military would make the whole American Revolution hypocritical, would it not?
As the whisky rebellion proved, the fathers had very little patience of armed citizens rebelling. Hamilton would probably vote for a hyper Assault Weapons Ban if he was revived.
Saying crazy Alex would support it does not help the case.
