The 2nd is, at the same time, both simplistic in its meaning and complex in it's implications. The intent of the 2nd was to encourage the organization of all able-bodied, fighting age, citizen males, ages 16 to 60, in every community. They were to supply their own weapons and be properly trained to proficiency in the use of those arms, as well as competent in battlefield tactics and unit cohesiveness acting as independent militias, who could integrate with other militias, in the case of war with a foreign invader or to confront a domestic threat.
The 2nd was drafted and ratified at a time when the United States of America—the thirteen colonies—Had a deeply engrained fear and loathing for a standing army even if theirs. Something that originated from the mandatory quartering of British soldiers in colonial homes.
The words of the 2nd are simple to understand if you know 18th century English:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"Well regulated" — Does not mean control, or regulation by a body of authority such as government or regulatory agency as it does today. In 18th century English, the word "regulated," was synonymous with competency, proficiency, and expertise.
"Militia" — Is another misunderstood word. In 18th century English, a militia was a body of able-bodied, fighting age, citizen males, ages 16 to 60, who would organize into a single unit of fighters, and be relied upon at a moments notice, to assemble with their weapons under the command of a designated leader, usually someone of military officer pedigree.
"Being necessary to the security of a free State" — Is very self-explanatory in that it means exactly what it says, to defend the security and liberties of the citizenry against aggression from a foreign power or domestic threat in any form from oppression to abuse of government power. Yes, it is true. My views on that later.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
— No body of perceived authority, be it government, local, state, or federal, the congress, court of law, created regulatory agency, religious institution, bank, business, or any individual for that matter, from a mayor to a landlord, could prevent the ownership and possession of any arms by any citizen.
You don't need a degree in human psychology to understand why some people have an animus towards guns. These fall into several categories. First and foremost, your typical leftist demagogue's deeply rooted hatred of the 2nd Amendment, which is centered on the fear of being deposed of power by those "they" would force their will upon—most Democrats in DC—they do understand the 2nd too well. And as such, it is unacceptable to them.
Then, there are those of the liberal persuasion with a pathological dislike of guns for a variety of reasons, mostly their sanctimonious elevated view of themselves above the masses of ignorant conservative they see as reprobate brutes who "cling to their guns and their Bibles," as Obama once said. And lastly, those who simply don't understand the attraction Americans have for guns, nor do they care for them. You know the types. The pussified snowflakes.
The truth of the matter is this as I see it. Yes, our right to bear arms SHALL not be infringed. Nor should there be any limitations to what you can have. If you can afford it, you can have it. That's the way it was and yes, that even means machine guns, which until the 1930s, you could walk into your local mom & pops hardware store, and walk out with a fully-automatic machine gun and all the ammo you could carry.
No background check, no NFA stamp, nothing. And there were no mass shootings like today. What has changed? Society. More gun laws than ever before—there were none until the NFA was passed, and no moral values or restrains anymore. And who gave us all that? You guessed it. Leftists.
As to defend yourself against our government should it go tyrannical? Let's not be disingenuous. How are you going to make a stand against our military, arguably the best in the world, should that tyrannical government dispatch tanks and infantry against a justified and righteous popular uprising? It's a rhetorical question.
Unless the military turns against them, you don't have a chance in Hell. Which would explain Obama's purging of the senior office cadre during his eight years in office, and Biden's obsession today with the rank and file, using the excuse of rooting out white supremacists within the ranks. Now all the pieces fit together.