Well, the second amendment[0] says that weapons are necessary for 'the security of a free state', which is interpreted to mean security against standing armies

Well, the second amendment[0] says that weapons are necessary for 'the security of a free state', which is interpreted to mean security against standing armies of the federal government.[1]. Self-defense is the modern interpretation as of 2008.[2] I don't think it's quite a MAD situation. Hopefully very few are so disillusioned as to think that packing heat is the only thing stopping this whole place from erupting into gun-fire. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment [1]: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html