Memes

Yes, it does.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html

Of course, there are a couple things to note.

One, and this is your real problem:

The National Guard is not a militia, and it definitely isn't the kind of militia you need the right to bear arms for. Militias are organizations of armed civilians that can respond to local events, while the Guard largely fulfills the role it's under government control and does not meet any of the qualifications intended by the 2nd.

The intentions of the 2nd are relatively clear, historically. To have a population capable of defending itself from enemies, including their own government, arms must be legal and available.

Of course, the biggest supporters of the 2nd were the southern states. It also very clear, historically, that they were mostly worried about slave revolts. The rest of the support came from eternal border conflicts with native tribes.

It's also very clear that they knew militias weren't worth a whole lot in a pitched battle, only the Swamp Fox really saw them have any success, by generally being a, you know, terrorist.

Which is a lot of the problem with the modern concept of anti-government militia.

We don't have slaves to repress, we don't have Indians to genocide, all they've got left to do is plan on being insurgents. And there is a very thin line between that and a terrorist.

Still, I tend to agree with other radical thinkers on the matter.

The workers must not be disarmed, lest revolution against tyrannical systems become impossible instead of merely improbable.

The problem is it's, quite frankly, just too late for America. We'll choke to death before the people know their enemies.