Current & future validity of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution

The difference between a standing federal army and a readily available state army is just that. One is standing, one could be assembled quickly due to each person being armed by the 2nd amendment. The training and equipping of such a readily assembled state army (once assembled) would not be comparable to the federal army. The army would be self-equipped, as is the intention of the 2nd amendment. These people would already have weapons and ammo. If the people are already self-equipped, it's not a stretch to say that these people already know how to use the weapons they own, too. A common man army does not necessary need to be organized by the state, but the state would have the ability to do so; and probably should if a great majority of the state's people are rebelling against a tyrannical federal government. You keep going back to the theoretical maximums of army size. Yes, it's possible that an army of that size could temporarily be formed if the will of the people so desired, but the theoretical maximums will likely not be met on either side. Seeing that most common man soldiers will show up with their own weapons, ammo, and supplies, and knowledge of those things; it's not as great of a burden on the state as you make it out to be. Mixed ammo types isn't really a logistical problem when each brings their own. And if ammo is needed, a delivery of the common types would be acquired. Lets say .22, .223, 7.62x39, 7.62x254R, 308, 20 gauge, 12 gauge, 9mm, .45 cal. All of these things can be found in many stores, and is readily available in warehouses. Purchases could even be made from anyone selling, be it local suppliers via black market or foreign countries as is often used during wars to meet demand. I interpreted Jefferson's quote correctly, and his concerns are valid. They are just as valid today as they were then. Just because we aren't being invaded today, or rebelling today; this doesn't mean we won't be in the future. Things get worse before they get better. Once people don't really have anything to loose, that's when rebellion happens. For america, that would mean a depression with high unemployment, discontinued welfare benefits, many discontinued civil services; a brutal police force that is militarized, under trained, overfed, and ill-experienced, and FEMA camps to keep the most unfortunate of us in to separate us from others. Gradual registration and limitation of armaments of the public, leading to the total disarmament would be up there with those things too. Jefferson's concerns are very valid. Men with sin nature in their hearts will always exist; this verifies the legitimacy of Jefferson's concerns then and today. Keep in mind, evil does not just spring up from nowhere. It's gradual. The Nazi regime was gradual. Hitler never broke a law, for all the things he did was validated by policies gradually passed. This slow whittling away of the 2nd amendment due to arguments regarding technological advancement and destructive capacity of individual weapons is not good for a free society in the long run. The 2nd amendment can not be limited to firearms, otherwise the very reason that the 2nd amendment was created can not be fulfilled. As it stands, if the people only posses semi-auto firearms, then we have already lost against any future tyrant that will arise. This validates the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I might add that the 2nd amendment is like a fire department team. There aren't always fires, but you're sure glad you have them when there are fires. About states organizing the construction or purchase of nuclear arms: it's very reasonable. The United States federal government has an official report that it is currently in possession of 7,300 individual nuclear weapons. However, it's estimated that the United States has produced more than 70,000 nuclear warheads since 1945. With only a few dozen (if that) required to exterminate humanity in it's entirety due to climate change and fallout; I'd say it's reasonable to assume that if America's federal government actually cared about their people, education, infrastructure, the public opinion, and not destroying the entire world, they would have stopped building these weapons around the 300 - 500 mark, and scatter them far and wide so they aren't vulnerable in one spot. And in the event that a state's people would assemble against a tyrant, I'd suspect that if nuclear weapons could be seen as advantageous, they'd simply be purchased. If the state is organizing the people's will while in the midst of rebellion, they aren't going to take a poll of whether they should purchase nuclear armaments or not. They will just do it if it's affordable and advantageous for whatever given scenario. North Korea has never used nuclear weapons in war, so your notion that they don't use them correctly is not valid. I am fine with anyone who has the resources buying a destroyer or a nuclear weapon. The more people there are like that, the better the odds that a few of them will be on the rebellion's side and supply the destroyers and nuclear weapons to the disposal of the common man armies and the states organizing efforts. Each state forming an army in rebellion would not 'vastly increase the bureaucracy of our government' because the efforts of such armies would be to overthrow the tyrannical, bureaucratic federal government. The notion that any hypothetical owner of nuclear ordinances could use them maliciously is negligible, for if you can afford nuclear ordinances, you've clearly got a whole, whole lot to live for. While it's possible, it's very, very unlikely. Probably thousands of times less likely than a man stabbing 23 school children within mere moments on December 14th, 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org...