You're right, it is recent. And it's a shame it didn't come much sooner. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms.
It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."
> A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason to bear arms
Some would argue that even some Framers disagreed with you on this one.
Stevens' dissent[0] on DC v Heller was that if the Second Amendment "plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank" how can we interpret it to provide protections beyond a well regulated Militia?
What's confounding is evidence that the Framers explicitly did not include broad language. Other state's proposals included language around hunting and self-defense, and they did not make it to the final draft.
> Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing, since it is clear that he considered and rejected formulations that would have unambiguously protected civilian uses of firearms
I would say that in an age of social media, and in the context of the US, the _perception_ of a tyrannical government is far more dangerous than an actual tyrannical government. There's no shortage of Americans who somehow consider Biden to be a tyrant, so it would follow that the risk of another January 6 (but worse) is extremely high.
It's almost like they left an oppressive government where only privileged people whom the government trusts were permitted to obtain arms, and they were like "maybe we shouldn't give the government that discerning power again."