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

So I just want to offer a rebuttal to a lot of the things that you state in your arrangements for the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment in current American society. First of all I would like to discuss your point on the maintenance of a militia as per the second amendment. In my opinion the maintenance of a militia is not to rise up against tyranny but to serve as America's military if invaded for in the inception of America the American military was adorable in comparison to the armies of Europe thus America hoped that if we were invaded( or for a lot of reason decided to invade) any European nation America would have a large force for a guerrilla style defense of America that served us well in the Revolutionary War. But to establish the current idea of 2nd amendment as James Madison in modern day America would be a little bit crazy. Because we would first of all need to add either 1.8 or 0.9 million service members to around one percent of the population depending if your talking about active duty or active duty and reserve and then multiply 3 million by 25 to get the grand total of an organized militia that has received military training to 78 million men. Although I do not claim to be a founding father savant I severely doubt that the founding fathers wanted a standing army larger than most of the armies in the world put together or such a absurdly large military force that does not insure against tyranny but instead puts a economic drag on the nation that we can ill afford I also feel that the the second amendment was written out of the justified fear of military coups which happened alarmingly in France and other nations. I believe this For is best put in the words of Thomas Jefferson "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789, 549 These types of cups although scary have almost happened once and did happened during the civil war. A shockingly low record in comparison to other nations in the same time period. Thus in my opinion the fear of tyranny in unfounded in American history. However I would complete agree with you on the fact that a armed militia no matter how large would mount a effective resistance against the united States' military. Thus the mere notion that the right to fire arms would make the slightest difference to me is to be quite honest a laughable idea that would a terribly one sided affair. However, I think that your argument takes a down right foolish approach when you star taking about arming the people with modern military ordnance such as "(the real ones); but they should be able to purchase or build artillery, drones, large bombs, destroyers, air craft carriers, nuclear weapons, and anything else they so desire." First of all nuclear weapon are quite literally the most dangerous possible thing on the plant (besides maybe climate change) a he mere notion of saying high Jim bob do you want to build a nuke with me just down right scares me a hell of a lot more than any other threat our nation currently faces. For just imagine some person builds a nuke and blows it up in the eastern sea board. Millions dead making the land uninhabitable for thousands of years as well as any other symptoms of nuclear fallout. All because of a extremely broad interpretation of the US Constitution. I would also hope that you expect the government to not out spend the common people a billion to one in their persona military spending because they may actually be busy living their lives. Thus the notion of why not just give everyone a nuke is not a solution its Mutually Assured destruction And to counter any arguments that you may bring up I do support the right for Americans to purchase firearms (within reason) as long as they pass a background check yes even the super scary AR15. In my opinion mass shootings do not happen because of guns(they do help) I instead think that its because of mental health thus I have no qualms about the right to bear arms (so long as its reasonable) but interpreting the constitution on the right to own nukes is a bit like referring to the old testament for military tactics. I think that just about covers it. ( Hello my names Jeffery I am a moderate democrat that lives in Massachusetts and I am very passionate about politics I'm sincerely sorry if I offended any one in this article if you would like to have a discussion about please ask)