Never said it was. The Second Amendment is a response to the revolutionary war in throwing off an oppresser.
An oppressor that is now an ally. But the 2nd amendment was not really a response to that event, which by then was already a decade into the past. Most historians conclude that the 2nd amendment was a concession to the anti-federalists to ensure that individual states would maintain the right to have their own armed defense. At this time the feeling of national unity was much weaker than it is today. Back then, people mostly lived their lives and died in their home state with very little interaction with people from other states. A Virginian considered himself a Virginian first and the citizen of this new "United States" second, and only grudgingly. As that time, volunteer militias were the norm for local defense, and so it was natural to want to have an armed populace from which a state militia could be quickly formed.
Today people travel between states much more freely. I grew up in Michigan, for example, but now I am a Minnesotan. I might very well live out the rest of my days as a Arkansas resident. Also states have their own armed defense at the state, county, and local level. The need for a state to form a volunteer militia is non-existent. Recently, court rulings have interpreted the 2nd amendment more as an individual right rather than a community right. But these are recent decisions which could be faulty and so they do not prove anything about the original intent of the founders. That brings up another question. If an armed populace with individual rights is in place to respond as a group to what some consider an oppressive authoritarian government, what assurance is there that all the individuals with guns will be on the "right" side of such an uprising? What is more likely is that various groups will, at various times decide that the government is oppressive and take action. And other such groups will decide that the first group is the real danger to the nation and will take up arms against them, leading to a civil war. There is no guarantee that the "good guys" will win. Generally what happens is the ones with the most guns will win. And there are not always the "good guys". So by putting your hopes in the 2nd amendment instead of the democratic process, you make it more likely that you will lose a government you like and get a government you don't like.
Are you purposely not understanding for arguments sake?
I am understanding you as well as possible, given what you have written.
Now you twist it further?
I see no reason to feel "special sympathy" for people who are armed either. Nor for those who twist ideas like you do
I don't think anything about it, what makes you think I do?
Because you made special mention of wanting to have government that will not ride roughshod over people who are armed. Maybe what you really meant to say was that "government
will not ride roughshod over people who are armed". But that is clearly not true either. The armament of the government military is so overwhelmingly powerful that it could not possibly be overthrown by any loosely organized collection of armed individuals. It is a fantasy to think that such a revolution would be fought with firearms, with the government having power over the Internet and telephone, as well as life-support infrastructure, there is no way such an insurrection could succeed. The best bet is to exert control over the government using the channels that are provided by the government, which in the case of the United States is one of the best in the world in terms of people having options for peaceful control.
I am telling you we have a Second Amendment, given by men wiser and smarter than your current leaders, and some of the reasons why we have it.
I realize that, and I disagree with you.