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

And thank you for continuing this debate, I'm rather enjoying it because it provides me a constructive format for arguing this point. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said the 2nd amendment hasn't been utilized for it's original purpose for 200 years. I'll repeat that, it hasn't been used for 200 years. Why is this? Could it be because the American people have been armed for the last 200 years? Perhaps it's what has stopped complete invasion of U.S. soil? Take the cold war, as you mentioned. Nobody wanted to engage because they knew nobody would win. Having armed citizens most likely has the same effect on foreign enemies outright invading. The mightier federal force would be expected to have dealt with the Civil War, the Mexican American War, and WWII, as it did; this is it's man-date. People not utilizing the 2nd amendment for a length of time is not proof that the 2nd amendment isn't needed. That's like saying we don't need a fire department because there have been no fires for 200 years. The threat of fire is still real, just as the threat of tyranny and subsequent rebellion is still real. The greatest threat to a free society wouldn't currently be a standing federal army, but that could change. The greatest threat, I think, is a corrupt federal government, un-checked federal branches created post forefather era, and a justice system that isn't held accountable because no elected official wants to outright admit that there is a serious problem. I've used the word "bureaucracy" and it's variation "bureaucratic" together a total of 2 times (previous to this post), one of which was contained within one of your quotes. I used bureaucratic and tyrannical in the same sentence, with the full meaning of the words behind them. Did the United States not do considerable nuclear testing itself? We may not like North Korea, but they have not used nuclear weapons in war, unlike America. I'm giving the 'Jim Bob' argument it's own paragraph. Let's look at the closest comparable existing thing. Obviously, we can't use an example of an actual individual with a nuclear weapon because one has never existed. Harry S. Truman, the man who singularly decided to drop the first atomic bomb, and then the second was not alone in the matter, and his orders were supported by high ranking individuals and then carried out by dozens and dozens of men so he can not be used in this specific argument. The closest thing, I think, to having a massively destructive item within the hands of one single individual, able to be used with malice against others (still by one individual) would be the owner of a professional demolition company. The owner could conceivably move the companies explosives by himself into a van or even full size semi trailer, and use it with malice in a populated area. How much high grade explosives can fit into an empty work van? I'd say a whole, whole lot. Yet this has never happened. the closest thing to it that has ever happened on that scale was the Oklahoma City bombing, and those explosives were home made and carried out by a young man who (relative to a demo company owner) didn't have a lot to live for. I never, never referenced the Newtown Shooting in any of my arguments, you did. I referenced a man stabbing 23 school children within mere moments on December 14th, 2012. I also provided a link. I guess you overlooked that while you were misunderstanding all of my other arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org... The logistical issues about the ammo are to be expected, but they are minimal. They are to be expected because this is simply the nature of the 2nd amendment, people may bear arms, not specific arms, and also not to be infringed. Maybe we should examine the word 'arms' in this context. This word in this context is derived from the word "armaments." A quick Google search for the word armament reveals this: ar"ma"ment G2;"rməmənt noun military weapons and equipment. "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments" synonyms:arms, weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, munitions, mat"riel, hardware "a shortage of armaments" the process of equipping military forces for war. archaic a military force equipped for war. With this definition of 'arms', then when the 2nd amendment was written, the authors knew that this word meant cannons, battle ships, mortars, howitzers, grape shot, bar loads, rifles, side arms, and carvery. They wrote into law the ability for all citizens (white males at the time) to posses any of the things that were currently available to the military of the time. America's forefathers would have wanted this equivalency in available arms to continue. http://www.americanrevolution.org... The 1994 ban on assault weapons is illegal, according to the 2nd amendment. The estimated figure of 1.5 million being in private possession during 1994 simply reflects how many people were interested in and able to afford such weapons. However if you take into account the total number of firearms privately owned in America, you'll find estimations from 270 to 310 million, which would be a much higher figure than the theoretical maximum size of a common man army consisting of 75 million Americans. And as far as your question of "how many" firearms are needed for protection - I say as many as the public desire. There is no burden of proof for me to lay out a detailed rebellion plan. If that time comes, it'll be up to the elected officers leading the rebel forces - they would be up to the task. I'm here to debate the validity of the 2nd amendment, not to get sidetracked by creating 'actual plans' for rebellion. And again, you hit the nail on the head with the Germans also, and with America's current checks and balances system. James Madison warned in Federalist paper number 51 that tyranny is possible in the form of "tyranny of the majority." Being a democratic system, and having checks and balances, the opinion of the majority is imposed on the minority. Although WWII era Germany operated upon a different government model, the people supported the horrifying mistreatment of Jewish people, along with a slue of others. In America itself, Africans were not citizens until 1868. As you see, the "tyranny of the majority" simply goes with the flow. If most people didn't think that the Jewish deserved the treatment they received, those laws would never have been upheld. This happens today still, the tyranny of the majority. If most people have a negative opinion on a non-violent and consensual activity, there's bound to be laws against it. I'll list some examples: prostitution, gambling in some areas, marijuana smoking, sodomy between homosexual couples, fishing without license, open carrying in a class-A county such as St. Louis, and owning an M16 A2 service rifle without permit. The design of the American government absolutely does not ensure against tyranny, for we have had vast and sweeping tyranny in the past. Another sure sign of tyranny is the blatant disregard of the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment, or any of the amendments for that matter. So, I think that the 'profound distrust felt toward are government' is very much so founded in facts.