I predicted this...

[A Black Falcon]

A common misconception, the 2nd Amendment exists not for the militias, but for the people. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. To fight back <i>against</i> an oppresisve militia, be it from the government or a gang of thugs looting houses.

As it's core, it's meant to keep the government from becoming too powerful, by allowing citizens the means to fight back.

That's not completely true. At the time (that the amendment was written), people could indeed own weapons, but also all the men were also expected to be a part of the local militia; gun ownership and membership in the militia weren't really separate things, I believe. Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia, from an early 1800s US Supreme Court justice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen..._Amendment

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

and this (from the same guy)

It is difficult fully to comprehend the influence of such objections, urged with much apparent sincerity and earnestness at such an eventful period. The answers then given seem to have been in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive. But the amendments proposed to the constitution (some of which have been since adopted) show, that the objections were extensively felt, and sedulously cherished. The power of congress over the militia (it was urged) was limited, and concurrent with that of the states. The right of governing them was confined to the single case of their being in the actual service of the United States, in some of the cases pointed out in the constitution. It was then, and then only, that they could be subjected by the general government to martial law. If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent right in the states to do it. All, that the constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent right, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty. As little pretence was there to say, that congress possessed the exclusive power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Their power was merely competent to reach these objects; but did not, and could not, in regard to the militia, supersede the ordinary rights of the states. It was, indeed, made a duty of congress to provide for such cases; but this did not exclude the co-operation of the states. The idea of congress inflicting severe and ignominious punishments upon the militia in times of peace was absurd. It presupposed, that the representatives had an interest, and would intentionally take measures to oppress them, and alienate their affections. The appointment of the officers of the militia was exclusively in the states; and how could it be presumed, that such men would ever consent to the destruction of the rights or privileges of their fellow-citizens. The power to discipline and train the militia, except when in the actual service of the United States, was also exclusively vested in the states; and under such circumstances, it was secure against any serious abuses. It was added, that any project of disciplining the whole militia of the United States would be so utterly impracticable and mischievous, that it would probably never be attempted. The most, that could be done, would be to organize and discipline select corps; and these for all general purposes, either of the states, or of the Union, would be found to combine all, that was useful or desirable in militia services.

As you can see from these quotes EM, you're confusing things -- the militia is the brake against the government, not the oppressive force itself. The Anti-Federalists were afraid of too much national power, and defense of militias (more local and probably state-controlled) were one of the things included in the amendments to make them happier about the new constitution.

Clearly the original intentions are completely outdated. Most importantly, we have a huge, strong military, and no civilian militia could ever provide a counterbalance for it if it decided to be tyrannical without some large-scale insurgency like you see in Iraq or something, and that was what I'd say was the primary original goal of the amendment. Could a popular revolt truly defeat the US Army, as the second amendment suggests and existed for?

This is also interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen..._Amendment

And this (quote below). Madison's quote here has nothing in common with current reality... the Constitution was intentionally written with vague language. We have to re-interpret the words more appropriately for modern times sometimes; we have in many other aspects of the document, of course...

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[7]

And in addition, there's certainly no control over people who own guns and no militias these days.

Oh yes, I'm not saying that the Constitution was written saying that guns should be illegal for anyone outside of the militias; obviously, it wasn't. I'm saying that you could interpret the amendment more narrowly, allowing gun control of things such as handguns and assault weapons without breaking the second amendment. Though I'm sure any such bill would go up to the Supreme Court, and with the current conservative control of that court, they might not agree...

Oh yes, as for 'we can't ban them, too many people have them and criminals wouldn't give them up', I consider that to be a classic defense by people opposed to gun control -- it's deceptive and not really true. Would some criminals still have guns? Of course. But if handguns were illegal, everywhere in the country, like is true in many other first-world nations, while some criminals would still have guns, many fewer would. When it's harder to get something, and the things are confiscated when they are found, the number of guns available for violence would go down! It's such a simple fact... it's like with drugs, in a way: make drugs legal and more people would do them. If guns were harder to access, there would be less gun violence. Sure, there would probably more stabbings and such, but attacks such as those are much less likely to cause high death tolls like gun violence can...