The Second Amendment

"A well regulate Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
--The Second Amendment of the Constitution--IN ITS ENTIRETY

So, here in a single sentence, we are given the reason for the allocation of a specific right. We want the state to remain free. To insure this we need security. To secure the state we need a militia. Militias must have guns.
So this is the state of affairs in 1783. No standing army. No armories. No missile silos. No nuclear submarines. No stealth bombers. No drones. Just a bunch of guys who have houses with fireplaces and mantel pieces and above each is a black powder musket, like the ones they fired on British troops at Bunker Hill.
In his love of "the original" text of the Constitution, Antonin Scalia, and his originalist brethren on the Supreme Court find an inalienable right for eunuchoid wackos, who have so little self regard they need to hold an AK 47 in their hands to feel like men. These men need to be able to keep an arsenal of attack rifles, grenade launchers and boxes of rounds of ammunition at home. 


I don't know why they can't have tanks in their driveways and rocket launchers. 


It's all right there in the 2nd Amendment.


There may be one or two other places in the Constitution where the framers take the trouble to explain why they are granting a specific right, just to make clear the rationale and to imply there are reasons here which might someday change. But I can't bring another to mind, right off the bat.