>Defenders of the second amendment often say it's an opposition to tyranny, but I fail to see how a hand-gun will help to protect you against an Abrams wielded

>Defenders of the second amendment often say it's an opposition to tyranny, but I fail to see how a hand-gun will help to protect you against an Abrams wielded by a tyrannous government - or should tanks, jets and battleships be objects that private citizens should be able to purchase and own for self-defense? You could say the same thing for the 1st amendment for individuals vs large media companies. Individuals will always be weaker than well organized, better funded groups. It's impossible to know what would happen in the event of a modern civil war, but it's conceivable that the military would fracture. As far as reading the 2nd amendment, I have been arguing lately that the "well regulated militia" should mean that gun owners should be required to attend militia training at least once a year, and if you don't, your weapons must be stored in an armory instead of at home. Something more akin to the Swiss system. Having to attend some classes would greatly reduce the number of people that would bother keeping guns at home I think, and would allow others to identify people with mental health issues. I would argue that right now we don't have a "well regulated militia" in any sense.