I often see very heated reaction to any suggestion about restricting the right of gun ownership (overturning Heller or requiring universe background checks etc) but those same groups seem relatively silent about suggestions about tweaking the rights of free speech and a free press in the 1st amendment (that the press is the enemy of the people, or that the use of anonymous sources be outlawed or the slander/libel laws need to be changed). The defenders of the 2nd amendment usually claim that they are defending democracy against potential tyranny but I don't think that really has ever been the case. Where as changes to the 1st amendment could move us closer to tyranny as information is the weapon of choice in our post truth society (specifically the US), not guns. The same groups protesting any contemplation of changes to the 2nd amendment often come to the defense of the 1st amendments freedom of religion clause, but not so much for its free speech classes (or so it seems to me, though I have no idea where I might find actual statistics on such things). So why was the 2nd amendment penned in the first place? Because we had just been through a revolutionary war and private gun ownership was a factor (even if a small one) in the early days of that revolt when militias (some of which required members to bring their own weapons) were in play prior to the colonies getting an army together. But that worked because the weapons available to the public were the same as the weapons available to governments (smooth bore muskets). Today although the power of the weapons has greatly increased on both sides, it is wildly higher on the government side. There is no way the US will allow private citizens to purchase helicopter gun ships or shoulder fired missiles, even if they could afford them. So any actual shooting war is going to be won by the government in short order. But it would be very unlikely to ever come to that since just turning off the water, power, internet etc. and waiting would likely be sufficient to end any uprising. Also I think it was far easier for those in the colonies, especially if born here, to view the government across the ocean as a foreign power and hence easier to fight against than it would be to take up arms against the government here (our civil war being the one obvious counter example). Especially since one of the hallmarks of our system is the peaceful transition of power. I think the fervor in support of never modifying the 2nd amendment is much more about the feeling of power that a gun can instill than it is about actual protection against tyranny.