The second amendment was because they didn't want armed forces.
Loose enough wording that I must clarify
The Founding Fathers felt there were many dangers in a standing army, especially those of the type often raised by English kings. Armies of the English kings were not necessarily comprised of the citizenry, which had often been disarmed... hello 1600s "gun control".
However, America's founders knew the lack of a national army could prove disastrous in a time of war; thus they gave Congress permission to raise one.
This was not supposed to be permanent condition. i.e. the national army was to be disbanded following a war's conclusion. Long term, an armed citizenry, a militia that could be raised in emergency situations, was thought to be an effective compromise that would maintain liberty and freedom in the long term, while also providing breathing room, buying time to raise a national army for war.
In addition to this logic regarding standing armies, anti-federalists in particular felt that disarming the citizenry was the most effective way of enslaving a people. As one example, English kings had in the past raised standing, professional, often mercenary armies while disarming their citizens. In response to this policy of
universal citizen disarmament and resultant oppression, many at the time felt citizens should be universally armed.
Given the march of technology, especially the Cold War arms race, we now have massive weapons systems that render the "disband completely, in times of peace" idea quaint. No country is willing to be the
first country to entirely scrap their carriers, drones and fighter jets, just because, e.g. America is not in an active shooting war with Russia or China.
As originally published in Valparaiso Univ. Law Review, see
The History of the Second Amendment
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.htmlQuite long, but very readable (and skim-able).
