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

Once again thank you for this debate For this section I think will use a allegory that you used of the fire department where you said "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" I might agree with you their but the reality of the allegory is to imagine the 2nd amendment as a volunteer fire department that was last used almost 200 years ago before being replaced by a professional fire fighting force that is more expensive but works better. Not Only does this professional firefighting force put out the 3 fires that have happened on American soil (Civil war) (Mexican American War) ( World War II) but has also put out fires around the world. Yet the old fire department which existences could arguably be attributed to thousands of deaths a year in America still thinks it should be around because our really really good professional fire department goes all Fahrenheit 451 and turn America into a distopian waste land thus they should be 25 times bigger even though they haven't done anything for over 200 years. I also wanted to remedy the confusion over the Thomas Jefferson quote you did analysis it perfectly but were both of us differ is its relation to modern society for Jefferson worries which were based in reality over 200 years ago do not pertain to modern America for the mere existence of a standing army is not the greatest threat to democracy Also your statement that its perfectly reasonable for states to purchase nuclear weapons based upon the fact that the United States built a large amount of warheads during the Cold War in order to absolutely insure MAD. These weapons were absurdly redundant but were built to scare the soviets not to insure nuclear protection.I also don't understand why nuclear weapons are even up for topic for states to own for nuclear weapons are the most destructive devices ever devised by Mankind thus the spread of these weapons could only led to bad things. I'm most confused that your defending North Korea in their blatant military escalations by testing nuclear weapons to call that the use of them correctly is absurd. Also I worry when you use the words bureaucracy and tyranny interchangeably for they are two very different things. It also annoys me that you continue to use the logical falicy that a person with the most powerful weapon on earth would not use it because you assume will not use it because he now apparently has a lot to live for even though he spent massive sums of money building something which has only on destructive purpose. I also find your casual reference to the newton shootings as a horrible statistical analogy (also he didn't stab them he gunned them down with a assault rifle). I'm also somewhat confused that you don't understand how different types of weapons would lead to logistical troubles for the US military had massive logistical problems when their were only 4 different types of small arms ammunition the Vietnam War. Secondly the care package of ammunition that your suggesting would be massive it also doesn't solve the problem in providing the huge amounts of spare parts and different types of cleaning kits needed for this diverse set of fire arms. Also your numbers for military style weapons are extreme low for your desire for a 75 million member militia force where their are currently only 1.5 million assault weapons by 1994. However seeing as these theoretical maximums will not be reached how many fire arms should America buy to be safe from something that might happen. And one that has only happened once in our 200 year history (civil war) for very different reasons than the supposed impending tyranny of the government. I'm.I'm also curious on how exactly you would recommend a rebellion be run against the government would it be a massive and organized coup, would it be a guerrilla defensive fight, or something else inertly different. For with so much talk of a hypothetical revolution their seems to be a distinct lack of actual plans other than the people will rise up and states will be the ones who do it. I also think that your somewhat broadly interpreting President Jefferson by pretty much giving a movie plot that has never happened in the United States. For he people of Germany under Hitler and the American public were completely different Animals with Hitler using the revenge desire of the German people. America has nothing even comparable to this situation that would not be possible due to the checks and balances in our government. To pretty much sum up my argument I find the profound distrust felt toward are government is unfounded despite having over 200 years of history. Thus I feel that the 2nd amendment has over stayed its usefulness to overthrow the government. However, I still believe that the right to bear arms is a important American tradition that should be allowed with background checks.