[Sailor Steve]

A very good question, TheSatyr. Of course the main objection to a standing army was that the government could concievable use it to overthrow freedom, so having one would make the Second Amendment more necessary, not less. In line with the Declaration of Independence (and to steal a march from Penn & Teller), the real purpose of Article II is the violent overthrow of the government; nothing more and nothing less. Hunting, home protection and all that other stuff is just gravy.

People opposing gun ownership (and the Guard themselves) claim that the National Guard is the descendent of the original Minutemen and the Militias, but a lot of others feel just the opposite; the Guard has its weapons supplied by the feds, and the President can call the Guard just as easily as the Governor, so it's still part of the standing army.

Fortunately the majority of soldiers were raised to believe in freedom, so if someone in government were to try to use the army against the citizens a lot of them would be deserting and joining the ranks of the oppressed.

We hope.

But I still don't trust 'em.