Except.  It's worth noting that is IS a part of the second ammendment and this was specifically something the founding fathers believed.

So any changes to it, should be addressed via constituional ammendment.

Back in the day when people thought the Prohibition ammendment was silly, they made a new one to get rid of it.

For some reason now a days though nobody actually wants to follow the law in a correct way.

That's the big key: i don't think the founding fathers foresaw the industrialization and professionalization of warfare which really didn't come full-swing until the 20th century. For the longest time (and this still applies in weak states), it was possible for an armed citizenry, if united in its cause, to easily overthrow the government through force of numbers: sure a standing army is better trained, but when the basics of what a standing army is capable of and what a peasant militia is capable of are about the same, the peasant militia can outweigh the standing army, sure. But in modern warfare, the ability to make substantive gains against such a professional military is nigh-impossible unless you yourself are a professional military.

The only reason rebel movements really survive are because of political protections surrounding them: a lack of will to eradicate them, or a lack of will to cause the civilian collateral damage necessary for eradication (for instance, why the US and its allies didn't just firebomb Baghdad out of existence. That would have gotten rid of any bad guys, for sure). But when push really comes to shove, the government will WIN, and quite handily (see Chechnya, where you did see a modern state gain the will to really crush a determined, entrenched insurgency. It was horriffic, but a demonstration for my purpose).

So he doesn't owe a million dollars to the Federal Government?  He should probably talk to them then, because they seem to think he's been allowing his cattle to graze on BLM run land for quite some time.

All that aside, nothing of what you've said justifies attempting to fend off the Government, on their land, with guns.  That will either end in a massive BBQ party, or a massacre.

Well, I would've said something else, because honestly I had a different definition of militia in my head but the definitions I gave seemed to be the definitions given to the word by the United States government. Judging by the wording in the second amendemnt (notably "well regulated") I feel like there is some sort of official capacity of the word, not simply meaning "the people who exist".

However, I was thinking of the "a militia to fight the government if it ever became too corrupt" line of thinking too, but I got to the point when I looked at it and said "what would citizens need to fight the government?". The only answer I see to that question is excessively dangerous weaponry as our government has such in its possession. I'm not entirely sure if you are condoning this over armed populace or just clarifying the constitution...either way, that is a very radical line to go down in these days and I doubt the majority would stand behind such regulations (or rather, lack thereof)

As previously stated, there comes a point where the peace of mind you ensure by possessing heavy weapons is lesser than the peace of mind you remove from others by your possession of such weapons.

Also, I see you posted a few quotes saying "No free man should ever be disbarred the use of arms" and I do not disagree. I am merely asking what arms should we be allowed? There is a line somewhere as most people would agree, now where should we draw that line?

Finally, I very much like that first post you quoted. I think it pretty much highlights a large problem with the modern interpretations of the constitution. The constitution was made a long time ago and times have changed. The strict wording of these amendments is not what we should be following, we should be looking at their heart. Even though there was a disagreement on the definition of "militia" (which I hope I cleared up above), I'm not sure if we disagree with each other.

Frankly, I can't understand this viewpoint. The idea that the Second Amendment should exist to offset government power is just silly. Ignoring the lopsided balance of military assets in such a situation, it makes no logical sense.

The problem with it, is that you are  using a more modern definition of the word regulated.

"Regulated" doesn't mean governed by government regulations in this case.

Regulated in this case means trained... by realising that and rereading it with that understanding and the many quotes of the founding fathers it becomes fairly clear.

"A well trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Whether or not the laws should stay like that, I am not really saying.  However what I WILL say is that the consitution and it's ammendments should be held to their oriignal interptations, and expanded outword in ways that makes sense.  So people should technically have the constituional right to own a fully opperational tank etc....

and if the majority of people and congress disagree with this... they should pass a consitutional ammendment to change this.

So has been the case many times before.  As this brings the dicussion to everybody, people can talk and understand each other and people can deicde and know exactly what they want and draw the lines right where they want.

 As opposed to leaving it up to judges to just randomly draw a line they think is best because it's easy.

It's more accurate to say.... the Founding fathers didn't see a need for a powerful standing army.  They knew that it was possible for a standing army to gain the power to eaisly wipe out Miltia... and it was this specific fear that led to the second ammendment in the first place.   Even back then there were plenty of weapons that required a decent sized industry to produce.  For example, canons, naval fleets etc.

Also, i'm not sure i'd say Chechyna was crushed.

In a theoretical founding father world.  Parents would train their children at a very young age to use weapons, and everyone would know how to use a military grade rifle at least... like say Switzerland.

More expensive equipment would likely be taken on by richer people or just community groups (when fortunes die/areas want to show off/feel patriotic), whose power would be kept in check by there only being small amounts of them, and it being somewhat impractical to use larger weapons on a larger well armed populace.

More or less keeping other governments and their own in check.  The only check against the militias really being that they would need government permission to conduct offensive invasions.  (Or so i assume, i could be wrong.)

Sort of like Galia in Valkryia Chronicles from what I gather from how they're government works.  Everyone is trained in weaponry at a very young age and everybody owns weaponry.  There is a small standing army, that more or less handles things until war is declared on them, then suddenly the whole nation rises.  With the only real difference there being that the draft is theoretically mandatory?  

I'm not actually sure if all the tanks in that game are government owned or family owned.   It SEEMS some are family owned because I want to say the Tank commander guy came from a family of tank commanders?

It actually could probably be a really effective.  It seemed to work decenetly for Switzerland who was able to ignore many wars.

That said, i'd question if large parts of the country could handle the mentality for this kind of self defense anymore.  It's hard to imagine large swarths of California effectivly be willing to train their children.

Theoretically if the spirit of the second ammendment surivived as far, basic military rifle training would of likely been a mandatory class for public schools.  Though it's hard to imagine that passing today in a number of more liberal states.

It's a shame, because it could probably be done quite effectlily, cut the military budget down to basically nothing but R&D, air defenses and a Navy freeing up lots of money for welfare and tax breaks with the added bonus of basically making the USA a more isolationist country who would only intervene in cases where the general populace felt upset by actions.

Abuse of major weapons would seem to be limited by the fact that EVERYONE would have them.  I want to say switzerland is another example here?  There is one country where basially every adult male is forced to by law to own a military rifle and keep it inside of their house... and these things are basically never used in crimes there.

So when the US did go to war, it'd likely be for more Humantarian reasons... and their ability to prosecute wars vs countries who can't strike the US continent back would basically be limited to popular opinion and people volenteering to go over and fight those wars.

Or for another TLDR,

The Founding Fathers wanted the USA to essentially be Switzerland before it was cool. (Or Switzerland existed)

Basically the founding fathers would hate the restrictions on the second amendment and REALLY hate the armed forces.

I always get a good laugh out of people saying the 2nd amendment is going to protect us from our government.

Edit: I also like to say that it seems like an America where the people are supposed to live in peace by fear of mutual destruction with it's own government is a pretty awful America.

So basically your argument is that the right to bear arms is trumped by the superiority of firepower of the federal government? Or is it your assertion that the federal government SHOULD possess the ability to summarily exterminate its citizens with "extreme pejudice?"

Le sigh...