It's a bit more complicated than that. The second amendment has been "infringed upon" for roughly a century because it isn't as straight forward as second amendment advocates claim.

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.

That doesn't say:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Which is what a lot of second amendment advocates wish it says.

If you read the sentence:

With the impending meteor, we must have daily meetings for safety.

it's pretty clear the meteor is a factor.

The United States did not have a standing army when the second amendment was ratified. So this could be interpreted more as "the people have a right to security from threats to their freedoms foreign and domestic."

Now that said, it's true (to my knowledge) that the founding fathers were not opposed to violent revolution in the face of a tyrannical government. So the "militia" portion of that really just muddies the waters.