I hate to say this may be right.
To the OP: I have always interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that a citizen will have the ability to arm themselves to their liking so long as they are reasonably able to be trusted with such arms.
The 2A defends the others is my view.
And here I was actually afraid I'd get called a crack-pot, or worse.
I'm a computer programmer and systems architect by trade, and an amateur historian and philosopher by hobby.
Assembling linear, rational logic to put our current world economics in to perspective with that of a living historical context paints a very dark picture of what lies ahead of us. We passed the tipping point a long time ago, the equation is unbalanced and we're on the road to self-destruction, as a civilization.
Will mankind survive? Undoubtedly. Will we eventually triumph and balance the socio-economic issues and factors in a manner which is consistent from the viewpoint of both resource allocation and individual liberty? Possibly.
Many systems have been tried since we first started scribbling symbols on stone tablets and seeking erudition and enlightenment as a species. So far, all systems we've tried have failed. Ours will likely fail in the end as well, and things are certainly headed that direction.
The question is just a matter of survival. Dark times in the future are inevitable; we'll learn lessons along the way which can contribute to the reconstruction of a new framework using the lessons learned in the past; just as we've done every time humans have built civilizations.
As promising a start our Constitution was, with all of it's checks and balances, our framework did not put in place a counterpoint to human greed, did not touch on morality, did not impose a set of ethical standards, and did not anticipate the level of technology humans would develop. We're infants with God powers, living in a technological world which grants almost every conceivable desire at the push of a button. Instant gratification is our undoing.
In short, our constitution lacked a counterpoint to the worst of human nature. It assumed - incorrectly - that there are (quite simply) "more good people than bad people." Since the framing of our constitution we've learned that this is not always the case - modern history is littered with examples of this. (For more insight study the political and economic structures leading in to World War 1 and World War 2).
We're undone, in the end, not by what the Constitution *did* address, but what it *failed* to address.
The First Amendment ensured we can all discuss this openly without prosecution.
The Second Amendment ensured we can survive ... and do it all over again, when the need arises. Our founding fathers were intelligent enough to know that once in place, a political system cannot be dislodged by anything short of force.
