(Re)Considering the Second Amendment to the Constitution

What did Alexander Hamilton mean in 1788 when he opined?

[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

"To defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens?" What the hell? Under what circumstances would it be fit and proper for Americans not only to bear muskets but to raise more modern weaponry and use such arms against forces in their own government.

Not to take this too lightly, there is that scene in Crocodile Dundee when a thug approaches him and his lady on the streets of (was it) New York with a little switch blade. Dundee reaches behind him, draws out his ten inch blade and says something like:

"You call that a knife; this is a knife."

But back to the Second Amendment:

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.

"The right of the people to keep and bear" (and I can only suspect, when necessary, to use such) "Arms shall not be infringed." If there's no right to use, let me add, what's the purpose of bearing said arms. "Aye! That's the rub." And who was it, anyway, who said that one ought not carry or aim a gun unless one intends to use it when necessary.

So, help me: Under what circumstances is it ... what to say ... Kosher to bear arms against the government and never mind this lame "right to bear arms" ... what about the right to use arms in those situations where the government is infringing on the other Amendments or the 

Laws. Isn't that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment?

For instance, should a President call for and institute a Registry of a Specific Religious Group which seems patently against such requirements for Equal Protection Under the Law of the American Constitution, what options accrue to the Citizen? And what of the situation where the Judiciary refuses to offer an injunction against this practice? 

Now one doesn't have to be a Constitutional Theorist (I haven't asked my son who was a constitutional theorist) to recognize that such a Registry would go flatly against the First Amendment. Still ... when does the Citizen have the Right to use the arms that he rightly bears and go after said President or his or her agents? I don't know but when Trump was hinting at a Second Amendment solution to the election of HRC a couple of months ago, was he alluding to this right ... the canonical and implicit extension of the right to bear arms to a right to use them? I am not imagining that Wilkes-Booth or Sirhan or Oswald or any of the others here in USA or elsewhere should be vindicated for their acts of violence against sovereigns ... and am not in favor of violent revolution .... Still ....

I don't get it and never thought about the Second Amendment much, before. Perhaps, it only applies to members of a minority party? My Sweet Lord ... Is it possible that the NRA's membership -- as all the other swinging pendulums of our Democracy -- will swing to the Left?