We do not live on the prairie, and your house is not a half-day’s ride from the sheriff. But it is still your house, and your family inside, and the right to protect those things with deadly force is yours, and should not be bartered.
I'm very interested in this theory,both because I find it appealing and because I'm not sure it makes much sense. I can sort of imagine people standing up to government more effectively if they have guns, but really, if the government decided popular opposition was a threat to it, that would be the end of popular opposition. Yet, people with guns would be more difficult to oppress than people without guns. So maybe it can be seen as a protection on the margin. In fact, the framers of the amendment probably held a view of militias and professional armies that was going out of favor even as they espoused it. But another near-century would pass before national, professional armies put an end to effectiveness of militias. --ts