[lentulusgracchus]

The scholar of the Second Amendment tends to put it this way (not disagreeing with you):

Freedom of speech may or may not protect pornography; but it would be difficult, probably impossible, to infer the monumental scale and solidity of that amendment from this one solitary inflection in its surface. The same is true of the right to bear arms. The history of its formulation and invocation makes clear that whatever its relation to the realm of individuals and the private uses they have devised for guns, [34] the amendment came into being primarily as a way of [Page 1269] dispersing military power across the entire population. Like voting, like reapportionment, like taxation, what is at stake in the right to bear arms is a just distribution of political power.

--http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html

[skinkinthegrass]

The same is true of the right to bear arms.so true...the intent of the framers of the US Constitution seems to have meant...
for it to be (somewhat) hard to consolidate power...a diffuse power base.
workable; but difficult..unlike the (previous) Articles of the Confederation...very difficult / impossible to work
and of course; back then you had, a semblance honor / knowledge of history / mores...not today.