Your interpretation of militia is a common misconception but the framers were pretty clear what they meant by the militia.

>Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

>Thomas Jefferson:“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

> George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-%E2%80%98arms%E2%80%...

I believe it is a human right which comes necessarily from your right to self defense.

Even if overthrowing a government is impossible, making the police who enforce unjust laws hesitate before, lets say, rounding up millions of people for deportation, that's a good brake. You slow down the bad processes just long enough to survive until the next election, when all the combined reactance against the unjust government can flush it clean.

If the police have no fear and don't hesitate enough to prioritize what they enforce, they will stretch a tyrannical law to its conclusion.

I see it like this: If your state passes a law allowing ICE agents to come into schools and take kids with little to no justification, and having armed teachers can make them hesitate enough to only invade 3 schools instead of 4, that's a minor success. Just enough of a brake to spare one immigrant family long enough for Trump to be ousted.

> Given the context of militia and state, I read it more as a right of local governments to keep the means of self defense, not necessarily a "human right."

The second amendment is predicated both on the concept of a universal militia and (as is obliquely referenced in it's preamble) the concept that large standing armed military and/or internal security forces are institutions of tyranny: it is based on the idea that only by relying on the mass of the citizenry as the instrument of armed force can a state be free.

Yes is why the "National Guard" or its a equivalent where formed in a lot of the revolutions American, French, Haitian and the ones of the 48.

  Given the context of militia and state, I read it more as
  a right of local governments to keep the means of self
  defense, not necessarily a "human right."

You might enjoy listening to a podcast episode I heard a few months back; "More Perfect - The Gun Show" [1]

It taught me many fascinating things - like that before the 1960s the second amendment was interpreted differently; the right was was seen as only relating to militias, and the NRA was an organisation of sports enthusiasts, and their limited political activity was mostly pro-gun-control.

And one of the first groups to advance the ignore-the-bit-about-the-militia-its-just-an-example interpretation were the Black Panthers, who sought to reduce police brutality by having police patrols followed by armed groups of their activists.

[1] https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-per...

As someone (a progressive from the UK mind you) who has read a lot of parliamentary texts I tend to the view that it does mean that individuals have the right to own / bear arms.

Its a two part statement i.e. a well regulated militia is a good thing therefore ...