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

Thank you as well for this debate I enjoy logical debates with people from the other side of the political spectrum First of all I want to touch on your argument of the difference between a standing army and a militia because you seem to think that a militia does not need to be maintained for even if the state militia is not paid the training, equipment, and officers would need to be supplied by the federal government as it was in early 19th century of American history. Thus the numbers and training and cost would be the same with the only difference being that they are not currently needed to fight and that they owe their allegiance to their state. This move to have 51 separate armies and militias in the United States is quite baffling and would vastly increase the bureaucracy of our government in order to managed this 78 million men distributed into 51 separate armies and or militias. or I personally could not see a single governor that would want to fund a state militia of such exorbitant size. For instance California with its population of 38 million people would statistically need to maintain an militia of 9.5 million. To put this burden on any state in my opinion is obscene when that money could be spent updating infrastructure or any number of things that states could do. However, you could make the argument that the people could supply their own weaponry. This would lead to a logistical issue of unprecedented difficulty between the hundreds of types of fire arms and ammunition that America uses. Another issue that i have with a framers interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the fact that their concerns of tyranny has been unfounded with the numerous checks and balances of America preventing tyranny far better than the second amendment. Also I believed you misinterpreted my use of the Jeffersonian quote which was meant to show the paranoia of Jeffersonian America which was run by the people who wrote the constitution. Therefore it was more to show how the second amendment was based upon a fear that was only justified 200 years ago. For although I have great respect for the founding fathers I think their mos important contribution to america was the fact that the constitution is not written in stone instead it has Amendments that are meant to Amend with America for the founders knew that America would go through change and therefore left ways to adapt the constitution to a more modern America. I'd also like to reference my straw man (eloquently named Jim Bob) on his access to nuclear weapons. Although I would concur with yo that it is neigh impossible for Jim Bob to get a nuclear weapon I still have many problems with your argument on this type of interpretation of the second amendment. The first problem is more technicality but motors are not at all expensive it is literally a tube with two explosive charges I also cannot think of any colonist or private citizen in America from owning artillery other than a antique. Another problem that I have is that the "state government to construct such weaponry by organizing the will and work of the people" was a statement that confused. For I would like you to imagine that a person goes to their state legislature saying they should build plutonium enriching facilities and build their very own sate atomic bomb just in case the government turned tyrannical. I would bet my life that the state would not do this for they have much bigger concerns least of which is enforcing the will of their states population who would not want to see their hard earned tax dollars to waste on something as foolish as a nuclear warhead. Another problem that I had was that your new laws which would empower the people with any weapon they desired would quite literally benefit cony the rich because they would be the only people who could afford a battleship. However, the worst part of your argument was when you said "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." for not only is that a logical wrong, historically wrong (do you really think North Korea uses their nukes correctly just because they can build them) but it also goes complete against your argument that misplaced power can be disastrous in the government but suddenly its okay for people. Please elaborate on this because it appears that your creating a double standard in which one person is more trusted than the government which is elected by the people our appointed by those we elect. For that is not protecting against tyranny its a self made dictatorship that this enforcement would allow.