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

Sorry for taking a bit to respond I got a bit caught up with school work I'd first like to answer your rhetorical question on why the US and the Soviets never engaged themselves in the Cold War. America was never ever in the course of the Cold war under threat of invasion. However, they were in danger of turning the world into a pile of nuclear slag a threat the USSR and the US held over each others head. Thus it was this deterrent that stopped the Cold war from become hot not the right to bear arms. The only example that semi relates to this in which Texans drove Mexicans away from Texas and declared the Texan republic. However, this was when Texas was a separate republic and thus had very little connection to the second amendment. With your analogy of second amendment to fire department to second amendment I maintain my argument that I made last round. "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." In reference to your opinion of the greatest threats to American democracy "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." ironically enough has much to do with a college essay that I just wrote. In the essay I reflected on how mandatory voting could solve many problems as listed above that plague American democracy. Thus the idea that Americans seems to need to be armed when a mere increase in reciprocity within our democracy could yield the same results and enfranchise million of Americans who traditionally don't vote. Though the argument for mandatory voting is for another time I believe it is connected to this question because obligatory voting would avert a crisis that you appear to think is bearing down on America and is much less....messy than a glorious revolution. I also would like to address your thought that the logistical problems of a militia would be minuscule for a old military proverb is that "amateurs think tactics pros think logistics" In relation to your belief that nuclear weapons were used correctly by North Korea and or at least as bad as the United States North Korea in one of the few things I agree with George w bush that north Korea is a totalitarian nation that it nearly as bad if not worse than Nazi Germany( a statement I do not make lightly). to Say that they would be responsible with this weapon because they had the resources to build it is a somewhat scary isolationist view that ignores decades of strife between North Korea and the World http://en.wikipedia.org... I'd also like to reference our good old Jim Bob in the idea that if he was hypothetically was a contractor he would fill his car with explosives and blow everything up. First of all they don't have spare explosives between Jobs the government is responsible for maintaining government stores of explosives. However, even if your hypothetical scenario was possible it it suddenly better to instead of trusting a licensed and trained building demolition expert with a nuclear warhead a responsibility that much of he US believes entire counties should not own. http://www.dykon-blasting.com... And my reference to the Newton shootings was a brutal sense of irony for on the exact day the newton shootings happened my apologies if I offended you and I hope you can understand my belief that you had made a mistake in that story foe I saw that date and immediately connected in with a different tragedy. https://en.wikipedia.org... I'm also well aware of what the military technology that was available to the founding fathers as well as their logistical restraints which stopped them from fielding a larger army thus the reason why the second amendment for the formation of state militias was popular. However, the original framers ideas would not resonate in today's society. For try explaining to James Madison that the shot heard around the world would not just be heard around the world but would also kill every living thing on it. Try explaining to George Washington that America is the worlds only true military superpower in the world. These new realities don't at all match the founders of America's belief for America because America has always been in flux and is still eve now changing with society. thus the ideas of modern weaponry and armament. Ides that had not existed in 1776 it is hard to try and base your ideology you know is based of something that does not necessarily apply to current technology for as I have stated before the amendments of the constitution were not written in stone and were made to amend to american life as it changed and that is truly why our constitution has survived because it is adaptive to change as it must continue to be if America is to continue to thrive. I would also reference you mention at the amount of weapons currently available in America was to show how few weapons are comparable to the American military for unless you recommend that we coercive Americans into buying such weapons I see little reason that almost 1/3 of the country would arm itself so heavily. And I would agree that the argument does not give you a burden of proof but the mob rue you espouse to worry about may find its heart in any revolution. I find your analysis of mob rule in the Nazi party as interesting but if you look at the statistics this was simply not the case when Hitler came to power only 40% of the public voted for Hitler and even less were actual members of that Nazi party. Thus the Nazi party is a classic example of the vocal minority winning over enough of the public with scapegoating.That is why when the allies liberated Concentration camps the citizens nearby had no idea ow Jews were being treated but they did know they were to be at fault for the Germans issues( the work of propaganda) thus I believe that Hitler is not a example of mob rule but is instead a example of a vocal minority. Thus i think your 'profound distrust felt toward are government" government is drawn from nations very differentthan America and thus irrelevant to the idea of allowing any type of armament for Americans