(02-24-2022, 08:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(02-23-2022, 09:41 PM)mikesez Wrote: Because it might interfere with or even overthrow the civilian government.  Because it might make itself out to be above or beyond civilian authority. Lots of reasons.  

That's why the forefathers made sure the entire military has to be reauthorized every two years by Congress. That's one of the original articles. Makes it much harder for the military to become corrupt in those ways.  If the forefathers thought that people having personal weapons was part of that balancing act, they would have mentioned it somewhere in the originally ratified document, not in the amendments.

You're so close. Recognizing that a standing army could be used by either a dictator or junta to overthrow a civilian government, it stands to reason that arming the populace... (finish this sentence)

Arming the populace would make a person considering military dictatorship think twice, but, that wasn't the thought process at the time.
The populace was left armed so that standing armies would be less necessary in the future.  That's what the clauses say.  They don't say or imply that civilians could or should resist their government, nor do they say they should have the same hardware the military has.

---