The people taking up Arms against the government for various causes was the basis behind our current government, and the reason they did not keep the Articles of Confederation which fit thier beliefs and perspectives better.
The Articles of Confederation were there ideal situation. However they found while it was the ideal, states would not give what was asked for if not required to do it.
They also found things like Shay's Rebellion too difficult without a way to counter it.
So even though they absolutely feared a standing army (which was also the federal LEO of the time) because it was as one of the biggest dangers to freedom and liberty, they recognized they needed some way to counter rebellions.
They had believed that the people themselves would rise up and crush rebellions they did not agree with. But that never materialized in Shay's Rebellion, and the people could no longer be relied on to accomplish that.
They however supported the people's right to rise up in similar fashion.
They pictured the relationship between the government and its people as something both always had to keep in balance. If the people did not rise up and show "that this people preserve the spirit of resistance" then that lack of willing resistance would lead to widespread loss of liberty.
Also telling in that qoute by Thomas Jefferson is his method of dealing with those that took up arms in resistance.
To reason with them "set them right as to the facts", to forgive the crimes commited in thier effort of rebellion "pardon" and to defeat them if necessary "pacify".
They didn't picture it as one side having the right to crush the other without opposition, or that the rebels should be punished under law. They believed that the battles between the two were necessary, to keep both balanced.
They believed the government needed to be limited under the constitution, shackled in chains, but that the people should be free. The government had rules and limitations imposed, so they could not gain the upper hand.
They pictured the perfect stalemate where liberty and freedom prevailed under some of the benefits of a federal government, but the threat to liberty presented across Europe by central governments did not exist.
But once you start viewing the second as preservation of militia rights, you quickly find yourself back in the group rights quagmire.
Only under modern twisted interpretations by both sides.
The second was about protecting the individual ownership of arms so they could be used in coordinated efforts in a militia.
Militias were not all government controlled, it was a term to describe any loose force put together.
The forces of Shay's Rebellion for example that predates the constititution was considered a militia, and it was most certainly not sanctioned by the government, and they could not disband it.
A militia was a population of people, often from a town or region, but not always that would organize under a common belief or need. Whether to fight natives, criminals, foriegn forces or even thier own government.
It was not thier right to prevail, it was thier right to assemble and take up arms though.
For a people to loosely form militias at a moment's notice as needed they had to possess personal arms. A right that was already set in stone in English common law, but had been infringed on.
The right to arms was an old common law tradition, dating back to the Magna Carta, which the English King, the ruler and supreme law of the land was captured and forced to recognize certain rights of the people.
One of those was the right to arms which could be used against his men.
No it was not an ideal situation that solves all problems, for the founding fathers did not believe such a thing was possible due to human nature and the way governments operated. They knew government would grow to destroy liberty, so they wanted to shackle it in the chains of liberty.
They believed it was a constant never ending struggle.
That they had to insure certain rights of the people were never infringed on so they could partake in that struggle as needed to keep the balance.
Most things they created were for stalemates and balances, from the structure of the government with opposing branches, to the ability of the people to take up arms against anything foriegn or domestic (and thier ability to individualy have the tools necessary could not be infringed on).
