If there's convincing evidence that a significant number of our community believe the 2A is meant to provide the people with the right to keep and bear arms with which to overthrow the government, then efforts to repeal the 2A will be joined by every citizen who doesn't want and doesn't see the need to prepare for civil war. It's that kind of wild-eyed rhetoric that makes the gun community look like a bunch of armed loonies bent on solving all issues with gunfire. Not very many people hate the politics of the people elected to govern enough to contemplate going to war against the National Guard to take down the whole structure of the federal government.
The 2A was created around the existing circumstances at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Prior to the Revolution there weren't enough British army troops in the colonies to adequately defend against the Indians so local citizens (males 16 to 60) banded together and trained in armed organizations that could be called to duty in emergencies - the militia. They were called "Minutemen" because they could leave their fields and shops and be on duty with loaded arms "in a minute" in case of an attack by hostile Indians. They worked with the thinly spread British army troops to protect their communities from such dangers. When dissatisfaction among the colonists began to escalate to rebellion against the English king the militias were the organized armed force that gave the rebellion its teeth and the cooperation between them and the British army turned into confrontation. That's why the British army left Boston for Concord- to disarm the rebellion by capturing or destroying military supplies stored by the Massachusetts militia. But the militia, who at that time were the only armed forces on the side of the rebellion, intervened and the war was on.
The Continental army was formed from a coalition of colonies; they were joined by the colonial militias to fight the British. After the war was won, the Continental army was disbanded, leaving just the militias to protect their communities as they had before the war, but without the support of the British army. That's why the first part of the 2A was written: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" Having organized, armed militias was the only way to provide and protect the security of communities, there was no other military or armed police in existence. The British had tried to disarm the militias - that effort, at Concord, was the first battle in the Revolutionary war - so it was necessary to protect the right of the people to keep arms for that purpose even though that risked an armed rebellion against the new government. The 2A was written to meet the circumstances and situation at the time it was ratified. The Third Amendment clearly has the same origins, as do all the amendments: directly addressing abuses and injustices the colonists suffered under tyrannical oppressive rule of the distant king of England. The marvel of it all is that these rights of the people above the rights of their government, written to directly address issues in the mid 1700s have lasted nearly 250 years, having been expanded and made applicable to the results of progress and changing times by decisions of the Supreme Court.
I believe that were the Founders faced with the sort of insane carnage we're faced with, they would support actions that would improve the public safety and reduce the risk of madmen with extremely lethal weapons while preserving the rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?