i'm aware that we're p bad at fighting unconventional forces relatively speaking but the common link between iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, et al is home field advantage (this would be in the military's advantage in a hypothetical war within the states i'd imagine) and insurgency (probably won't see too many mexicans or canadians sneaking into america to fight alongside americans). and even with the advantages that insurgents have, body count doesn't seem to favor them. anyway i guess i can't say there's a 0 percent chance that civilians would prevail in an uprising but it's gotta be close
as for the amendments i mean there's a connection; if the army decided that they were going to take wilmington and stay in my house my only recourse would be the court system and then i guess an armed rebellion that is likely destined for failure. i'm not anti-revolution (couldn't imagine being an anti-revolution leftist) or anti-gun ownership; i'm just seeing this as "we've gone too far down the rabbit hole, we spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, we're much better off attempting to elect the right people and not having a gun in every pot." guns or no guns, we don't live in an era where civilians keep the government in check in any way beyond voting.
anyway more on topic, there is precedent for restricting rights (can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't keep a stock of explosives just in case the government decides to enslave everyone or whatever), and the question in every gun control debate shouldn't be whether or not regulation is constitutional (it is), but rather "how much can we regulate until we reach and cross the line of unconstitutionality?" if we agree that citizens shouldn't have access to military ordnance, then we agree that citizens should be placed at a significant disadvantage in any type of armed conflict with the government (to the point that victory is not very likely at all). and if we agree that, say, felons and toddlers can't own guns, then we again agree that the government can (and should) place limitations on the right to bear arms. if the government can regulate types of speech and access to weaponry, i would think that regulating types of firearms falls within the purview of the government.
Many good points that I can't reply to since I'm using a phone.
I'm not sure any sane person is arguing that citizens need access to anything other than small arms - the same as no sane person is arguing for an all out ban on firearms.
I believe the Constitution was formed specifically to control the government's power over citizens, especially concerning the military. The commander in chief, secretary of defense, and secretaries of each service are civilians. Congress is supposed to have the say so in approving any military action.
I know we've gotten pretty far from how it's supposed to work. Still there is a great deal of control by civilians over the military - civilians basically control movement, healthcare, access to ordnance, etc.
Anyway, we've seen military uprisings in other countries. They've overthrown civilian governments and installed their own. Im not saying the paper the Constitution is written on stops that from happening here, but it did seek to limit how the military is used. I believe it also intended for citizens to be able to protect themselves in case of military uprisings.
You're right in hinting that it's not entirely relevant today. We generally worry nothing about military coups, foreign invasions or armed insurrections. It is definitely a good thing that we have such a stable environment. But I do have to ask - would our country exist as we know it today without an armed citizenry throughout it's history? I agree the protections are partly irrelevant today, but I think I could argue otherwise about the past or possibly in the future. I don't want to sound too much like our conspiracy theorists, but with so much division and hatred in our country, how much longer will it last?