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

The maintenance of a militia is to serve as America's military in case of invasion. The right of regular people (as opposed to a militia) is to not only help defend against foreign invaders but also against tyranny. Defense against tyranny, as intended by the second amendment and explained by Federalist paper number 46 is specifically intended to be carried out by the common people should the need arise. Interpreting the 2nd amendment as Madison does in his paper does not mean adding millions of service members to our military. Those figures were laid out by Madison as theoretical maximums of a country's standing army (not a state's common man army). He formulated these theoretical maximums in order to reason if the common people would be able to repel this force or not, which they would be able to at the time. The theoretical maximums are just that, theoretical maximums. The figure is supposed to be a high-ball. I want to clarify that Madison specifically states that this would be the maximum for a Federal army. The numbers you came up with were because you assumed that the state's common man army would be constantly standing. This is not the case. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable an easily readied army should it be needed to fight against tyranny or a foreign invader, or to defend against a smaller more local threat. Also, I think that there is no greater economic drain than a tyrannical government who spends over 19% of all federal income on a standing, well organized militia. The state's common people army would not necessarily need paid, as was laid out by Madison in his paper. He says that the states would collect the will of the people, and then direct the forces of the people. These notions do not directly refer to a paid state army, however if it were paid, it'd be temporary until whatever dispute at hand is settled. This would not be a standing army, rather, it's an easily assembled collection of state armies. The Jefferson quote you posted accurately reflects the state's common people army as it is today; not standing. A standing army would have those who own weapons and are able, to form a standing army organized by the states. Jefferson's quote also gives light to the current potential of tyranny in our federal government today because there is a large standing army. The fear of tyranny is founded, as is reflected by the entire design of our constitution, it's amendments, and government. Everything established during the initial forming of the U. S. reflects checks and balances and the rights of the people. They wanted to make it very difficult for tyranny to arise from within in the future. It is currently laughable that an army assembled with the men and available civilian weaponry could repel the Federal army as it stands. With the intentions of the 2nd amendment in mind, this leads to the primary argument that states and common people alike should be able to purchase or build their own weaponry; comparable to that of the current Federal military's weaponry. This is not a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, rather it's a very specific interpretation, as this interpretation serves the initial intentions of America's forefathers. You've made good points that are all commonly held notions about regular people having such weaponry. However, I'd like to put this into perspective with other things that are comparable in cost and complexity. Nuclear weapons, and even small supporting artillery such as mortars are expensive. There is great complexity in constructing nuclear weapons, and great knowledge required to build nuclear weapons. The ability of the common man to produce such weaponry is very strained. It would take a collective of highly skilled workers and funding from highly wealthy people to build such a weapon. However it is easily within reach of a state government to construct such weaponry by organizing the will and work of the people. How many people posses functioning tanks? How many people own a battle ship? None that I can think of. What if it were legal to own such things? Do you expect the number of people who would own them to significantly increase? I doubt it would increase too significantly, or even comparably to the Federal military's ordinances. For a more accurate example that we can look to in support of this notion is things that are legal to own, are expensive and complex, but not weaponry. How many people own a Pagani automobile? The latest model costs one million. Not many own this. How many individual people own a one million dollar Yacht? Not many. A one million dollar house? One million dollars is quite a sum of money, and I'm certain that purchasing a nuclear weapon would cost far, far more. It'd also cost significantly more than one million to assemble the needed personnel and materials and facilities to construct nuclear weaponry. So, it's safe to assume that "Jim Bob" and his buddy could not construct such weaponry. It's also arguable that nuclear weapons would even be needed in the event of a modern civil war or rebellion. Both sides know that no matter who wins, we must all still live on the same land. A reasonable person with great resources would realize these things, as would our Federal government. But, lets entertain the thought that "Jim Bob" has the resources available to build such weaponry, or even purchase it. I would infer that any person with such resources available is indeed a responsible person who would not use such power irresponsibly. As far as background checks and permits for such weaponry, they would be needed, unless in the event of rebellion against a tyrannical government. In such case, the rebel forces would forgo any compliance with Federal regulation; as would be expected. I could go into other things such as real assault rifles, grenades, RPGs, and such; but as long as we are debating about the most powerful weapon (nuclear weapons), I feel there is no need. Whatever conclusion is reached for nuclear weapons would be inherited by any lesser weaponry. Let's entertain the thought of a nuclear weapon being irresponsibly utilized, for it is possible. Is America's very own military above this? I think not. Recently, (around July, 2014) there were many concerns about the security of America's nuclear caches & there were serious doubts raised about the personnel charged with the operation of these weapons, should they be needed. There have been cases of Officers (charged with readiness to deploy nuclear weapons) as cheating on tests and being scored as mediocre at their jobs. Many systems in charge of nuclear deployment are severely obsolete and old, and may not even function correctly if the time comes. A blast door responsible for physical security of a nuclear cache was reported as broken, and propped open with a crow bar, and having been this way for a while. It wouldn't be unreasonable to speculate the ease of stealing these weapons by a small organized force, such as a terrorist group. It also wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the controlling officers of these weapons would fail at their jobs during the deployment of such weapons, with disastrous consequences, or malicious intentions of a drunken & suicidal commanding officer causing similar concerns. To sum this up, if the Federal government is to comply with the original intentions of the 2nd amendment ( the ability of the common people organized by the state to repel federal forces in defense of tyranny and foreign invaders), then the states and common people must be allowed any weaponry that the Federal government may have. It is unreasonable to assume that 'anyone can have a nuke', and it's reasonable that those with the resources to acquire them (should it be legal) would not use them irresponsibly.