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

James Madison reveals in Federalist paper number 46 the intentions of the 2nd amendment. "Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." http://en.wikipedia.org... To paraphrase, he says that the Federal government should have an army, but it's not too far fetched that the combined State's armies could not overthrow it. He then goes into the numbers. He states that to the best of his observations; a Federal army can't exceed one percent of the total population, or four percent of the total number able to bear arms. To show why the Federal army could be overthrown at the time, he assumes all people able to bear arms will do so and fight; and that this number can easily repel the Federal army. He then references the successful resistance against British forces to further support his argument. He later emphasizes the importance of the states within the country, referring to them as the thing that will organize the people, create officers, and lead the people against a Federal force. He later goes on about European people freeing themselves if only they could organize and bear arms. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which brings us to the argument. The current and future validity of the 2nd amendment. It is my stance that, after studying Federalist paper #46, that the 2nd amendment not only allows us to be able to protect ourselves against individuals and small groups that would do us or our loved ones harm; but it serves as the one thing that allows the people to rebel against a tyrannical government. Our forefathers in America took this notion of tyranny very seriously. They did what almost no other country in the world has done - the wrote down... on paper... these words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This isn't the only thing they wrote down. They felt it necessary to protect freedom of speech and media, along with other things also. All of these early amendments and the constitution itself were written specifically with tyranny in mind. The design of the U.S. government system was developed with tyranny in mind. Everything created during those first few years of independence day was put in place to keep the government in check, and to limit it's power and prevent any one opinion from ruling all. America's forefathers clearly thought that protecting against tyranny was incredibly important. It is my stance that although we are not in a state of rebellion at the moment, it's not impossible in the future. And observing all of the Federal branches created post-forefather era, we can see that these branches do not participate with checks and balances as was originally intended, and have grown substantial strengths because of this. One might argue that an organized people can not outfight the current federal army. This would be accurate at present simply due to technological advancements. No longer do the shear amount of men ensure victory. We are in the era of naval destroyers that can fire half-ton rounds 10 miles inland, and stealth bombers that can deliver nuclear bombs from the stratosphere. These are all serious problems, and demonstrate that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is being infringed. I argue that the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to it's original intent. Our forefathers may not have foreseen splitting the atom, but surely the foreseen weaponry advancing as it always has, making the individual soldier more effective. I think that not only should people own firearms or assault rifles (the real ones); but they should be able to purchase or build artillery, drones, large bombs, destroyers, air craft carriers, nuclear weapons, and anything else they so desire. I stand firmly in this because it is the entire intention behind everything that was created and written by America's forefathers. Our constitution, our amendments, our checks and balances, everything that was initially done was done from the stance of anti-tyranny. This should be the interpretation today still. I think the 2nd amendment is valid for the purpose of preventing tyranny. And I think that if one doesn't agree that the 2nd amendment can stop tyranny, then what will? Nothing. We'd have another Nazi Germany on our hands, where the opinions of the majority are brutally imposed on the minority, only shortly after all have been disarmed.