Historically, Politalker is partially correct.
The Second had two purposes. One was EXACTLY as PoliTalker indicated. The founders observed what happened in Europe with permanent, standing armies and they had a disdain for that. The armed civilian militia was a stopgap from any invaders until a standing army could be mustered. PoliTalker is correct in that respect. Also correct in that context is that the Second is outdated. Why have a militia when you already have the bigeest, baddest standing military in the world.
It’s not the word “arms” that is in dispute. “Bear arms” is the term to be discussed. In the 18th Century, “bear arms” was always used in a military context. You didn’t “bear arms” to go out and shoot dinner. You bore arms to protect yourself or your community from the enemy. There is no doubt about that context.
The Second also was about protection from a tyrannical government. In that time, that was very much a reality, especially in Europe. Arms put you on a more equal footing. Again, the civilian militia. In today’s context, that’s a joke. A true tyrannical government can kill someone halfway across the world with a push of a button. Anyone thinking they can protect themselves from the full force of the government today is delusional. Again, the Second is outdated. PoliTalker is correct.
The Second was never intended to be used as it has morphed into thanks to groups like the NRA. 24/7 carry? Pffffft. Again, PoliTalker is correct.
Bullshit.
40 states have their own constitution. This is from my state's constitution.
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
https://law.justia.com/constitution/pennsylvania/