The VT shootings again bring up the question of the Second Amendment. Almost from the first reports of the shootings we have had the right wing and the NRA claiming how those killed would have been safe if they only had carried a firearm themselves. These lunatics seem to invoke the "Gunfight at the OK Corral" as their principle historic reference. What I'd like to do is look back at the context in which the Founding Fathers included the Amendment and show just how distorted their position is.
I think it is always useful to look behind the myths that nations have constructed for themselves especially their foundation, and put actions in context. This is particularly true of the USA where the nonsense about the price of tea persists (In reality it was a tax dispute over the cost of defending the colonies and most of the protagonists really objected to taxes on paper)
There is also the idea that they were somehow uniquely American. Well let's reverse that and now regard them as Englishmen with a grievance against the government (the power of the monarchy had already been substantially eroded). The English have always been a stroppy lot and there was nothing different in the 17th and 18th centuries. Neither were they constructing the Constitution in isolation and like those who cut and paste today, its writers drew on other sources. Most notable among these was the Bill of Rights of 1689. If you look at its structure you can see in it the framework for the Declaration of Independance as well as phrases that will be familiar to those who know that and the Constitution.
If we remember that much of this was essentially a means of protecting the English from Catholic rule, if necessary by open revolt in either a civil war or overthrow of a monarch (James II had been deposed), we can see how it was thought necessary to have a group of Protestants who had the means to engage in that fight. Thus after listing the grievances against James II, which is strongly reminiscent of the preamble to the US Declaration of Independence, Parliament went on:
the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;
...
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law
7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
The tradition therefore is to see a standing army as the creature of the king (or in the case of the US, the government) which could be used as a means of suppressing the rights of the (Protestant) citizen and the will of the legislature. The ultimate protection of their religious rights was to have weapons.
The historic purpose of the "right to bear arms" is therefore not in protection of the individual against another individual nor, as is often assumed, to protect the country against an external enemy. It is so that the citizens can revolt against the oppressive power of their own government.