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

School work is definitely higher priority than this debate. I hope you get a good grade on what you're working on. The Cold War analogy was referencing exactly what you've said. War did not occur due to fear of nuclear warfare, and the fact that nobody would win. This is similar to the American people being in possession of firearms. Several invasions may not have happened due to this fact, because the foreign invader would still not win even if it could best the federal army, and both sides will have lost in respect to destruction and human life. I referenced the Cold War for the fire department analogy because they are similar. Nuclear war did not happen because of the threat of massive loss. So, you could say that nuclear war has not happened due to the existence of nuclear arms on the defending side. The 1st and 2nd time nuclear weapons were used, nobody else had an effective model except for the U. S. , therefore they were used. Akin to nuclear war in this aspect, many invasions have most likely never happened due to the defending country (the U. S. ) having the highest ratio of armed citizens in the world. A foreign country weighing the probability of successful invasion of the united states would be very foolish to not consider that the United States of America is ranked 1st in gun ownership ratio per 100, and ranked overall as having the most civilian owned firearms in the world 270,000,000 estimated in the U. S. 2nd place is India with 46,000,000. As far as ratios, United States is 1st with 89 guns per 100 people. Yemen is 2nd with 55 guns per 100 people. The differences in numbers is quite honestly staggering. So again, I'll reiterate that much like a fire department, although the U. S. 2nd amendment has not been 'used' actively for 200 years, this does not mean it hasn't had significant impact on American history for the last 200 years. . http://www.smallarmssurvey.org... You're concepts about voting are interesting, but alternative solutions to rebellions is not the subject of debate. As far as logistics goes, I still say that there is a substantial amount of ammo that is in possession of the people, or nearby that can be acquired. Aside from this fact, the United States is ranked among the top 15 countries in the world for ammunition production. Annual World production of small arms ammunition alone float around 16 billion rounds, and can go up to 21 billion rounds. An estimated 39% of this is produced right here in america. It's reasonable to assume that some of these production facilities would either support a common man army or be captured by a common man army. Even after reading the articles about all the production in America, I still feel that there are significant hoarders out there that possess lots of ammunition and other supplies and would be willing to share in the event of a rebellion. However, logistics of supplies is important. In light of these facts, I feel it wouldn't be the failure point in a common man army repelling the federal military and government. I feel the failing point would be in their armaments - specifically Military grade weapons - or lack thereof. This is why I feel that this entire sub-argument about logistics is irrelevant to this debate, for if the people can not have equal armaments to the U. S. Government (in terms of ability to own, not the number owned), then nothing else matters really and any rebellion against the U. S. government is sure to fail. . http://www.smallarmssurvey.org... . http://www.smallarmssurvey.org... Which brings us back to our topic. Is the 2nd Amendment valid today & in the future. To determine if it's valid, we must interpret it. That's where we are now, determining just how great of armaments does it apply to. It makes sense to debate about the strongest, nuclear weapons. In order to debate about nuclear weapon's potential for misuse, we must compare it to the closest thing. I read the demo-FAQ you posted, completely. I never found anything on that page that says they do not keep a store of explosives. However, I did call their office and asked about it. The secretary told me "We can not keep explosives at the home office. ", which is not to say that they don't keep them elsewhere. However, I'd still like to push the same idea with a similar example in which we know the facts. I'd like to bankrupt and re-employ Jim Bob with a mining company. The mining company has nominated Jim Bob as the holder of a blasting explosives user's license, probably because he has previous experience with it as the former owner of a demolition company. A guidelines article on mining explosives (listed below) implies that there's a limit on how much explosives can be stored by a company until a explosives magazine is required. Both below and above the explosives magazine requirement, the guide lists only one person as being necessary to have a blasting explosives user's license. . http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au... After curiosity and further research, I've found that type 1 and type 2 explosives magazines are permitted to store any type of explosives and related supplies. The type 1 & 2 explosives magazines are intended to prevent theft, however only one person is required to have a license; and therefore, only one person has the keys to the magazine. . http://www.atf.gov... Yet, we've never had an incident where a licensed person with access to an explosives magazine has filled up a van with something like ANFO for malicious intentions. All incidents like this used homemade explosives. So, in light of this, I think the proper licensing (and even security clearances) would be appropriate enough to ensure responsible people purchase nuclear weapons. The price of such weapons would further reinforce that the device would be used responsibly by said individual. I don't think that your argument about N. Korea being able to afford nuclear weapons applies as well, because those weapons are not being developed or purchased at the expense of one person. They are being purchased with, essentially, stolen money. Tax money that has been taken from the people of N. Korea. The point being; others are more willing to spend your money than you are. As far as the origins and intentions of the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment - they did not adopt the 2nd amendment due to logistical problems or for the specific purposes of repelling foreign invasions. The origins of the 2nd amendment are from the culture of where the forefathers came from. The English bill of rights of 1869 had a significant impact on the forefathers wanting to write similar protections for Americans. It bestowed a duty upon it's citizens to have arms. And, Madison being the major writer of the constitution and early amendments, his federalist papers VERY clearly outlined his intentions (which is probably why he wrote them). In conclusion; the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny as it's primary purpose. With the word 'arms' meaning 'armament' and armament meaning any weaponry available that a regular military would have, we can conclude that this applies to all weapons; including nuclear. With the threat of tyranny still valid, and the wording of the 2nd amendment unchanged by congress, then the 2nd amendment is still valid today and in the future.