It's simple logic. The Founding Fathers didn't want the country to fall apart or be under mob rule. However they also recognized the dangers governments gone tyrannical could pose and wanted to ensure the people had arms the government couldn't legally take away.

While the 2nd amendment defines a natural right to self-defense, and keeping arms to do so, it does not give a right to violent insurrection.

Of course they intended for the Second Amendment to give the people a means of rebelling. That doesn't mean they felt like every time the people rebelled the government should just roll over and take it.

Your argument here doesn't really make sense. They gave the people a right to violent rebellion, but also enforced the power of the government to put down violent rebellion? Those two rights contradict each other. There is no right to rebel violently against a government of the people, which how the US constitution is designed. If you don't like a law, you go out and talk to others, assemble a group, write messages in the press, vote, etc. You don't take up arms against the government.

If you read the federalist papers, and the defenses of the 2nd amendment, you will constantly see the fear of a standing army as a primary motivator. There are also calls for a universal militia, seeing service in it as a civic duty to serve for the common defense was the argument for it rather than a standing army. Yes fighting against tyranny was the main objective, but it was the tyranny of a government that did not derive its authority from the people, and therefore had no right to enforce laws on it. A standing army was viewed as an arm of such a government, since it was comprised of professionals who would not feel the sense of duty to the nation. (This was the view at the time)

Standing armies had existed for a long time. Some figures like George Washington had served in the British army decades before, and the British army had stood for decades before that. In fact, the modern British army traces itself back to the 1660s. Other European powers had standing armies. The only reason they had been rare up to that point was because of the immense expense in keeping one. Into the 1800s it wasn't uncommon for an army to require certain equipment or uniforms to be provided by the soldiers, or for the soldiers to be charged for their issue.

None of this refutes anything about nationalism, it just goes on about standing armies and their makeup. While countering my point about being paid, it doesn't refute it. Yes many people in the British Army were former prisoners and may have been impressed into service, but that only furthers the argument that they did not want to fight out of loyalty to their country. They fought because they had to, or they were paid to; not because they wanted to. Your example of the Hessians furthers my point; they were hired guns, not people who were fighting for ideas - which is nationalism.

Some of the earliest examples of nationalism in armies are the American Revolution and especially the French Revolution, when the scope of armies enlarged greatly.

And, again, most soldiers throughout history - and by most I mean the overwhelming majority - were not paid to fight (I mean they probably drew a salary and were allowed loot but they weren't professional soldiers). Most were forced to fight by law. In the medieval ages commoners didn't got offered pay to come fight, they got told to form up and come fight.

Actually this is incorrect. Until the gunpowder age, people in armies were mostly professionals. It takes much more time and money to train someone in the uses of a sword, bow, arrow, or horse, than it does a musket or cannon. While in the medieval ages, many people were obligated to fight for their feudal lord, as warfare became a constant, a skilled army was necessary. Thus pay and equipment became important.

If you look at the history of warfare, most successful armies were raised with the promise of pay or loot, not conscripted. The sides that lost were full of commoners who took up arms at the last minute.

There are lots of examples of a paid rather than conscripted army throughout pre-modern history: Egypt, Scythians, Romans, Macedonians, Mongols, etc.

The modern conscripted army has its roots in the French revolution.

All this supports my argument that the distrust of standing armies was due to their loyalty to something other than the country. Yes, I may have over generalized by saying they were ALL loyal to a paycheck, but they were not motivated by their country's ideals.