Eegore wrote on 06/05/18 at 05:51:42:

 I don't think American citizens used firearms to implement FOIA ...  "

“… I don't think American citizens used firearms to implement FOIA but instead used more modern means.  I don't know of a situation where the government attacked its own citizens to stop FOIA from being implemented…”

Nope, neither did. Yet the very simple fact that is, COULD be, was enough.

“… In theory in the past, when we were on equal weaponized footing with the government, …”

No, Never were, the British had far superior firearms, and far more training.  The’New’ country prevailed, because of Determination, cunning, wisdom, and obtained skill, (among many other things, namely, “Reason To”)

“… Had the government ordered the mass execution of US citizens by means of US military, and by some miracle convinced them to do it, there's not enough AR-15s, chainsaws and Wal-Mart shotguns out there to have made FOIA possible by using those personal firearms. …”

Again, a mart-mart shotgun, against a armored tank, no contest. But that, Again, is NOT  the Point. (See the First Response Again).
If you want to talk about, ‘may-bees’,  At one military Academy, in one Professors class, he taught a, ‘What If’.  That was the, Entire Mexican Army, was lined up, on the border, and NO  one knew about it, then one day invaded.
It would take just 3 days, for the people the civilians, (with absolutely NO help from the US army),  in just 4 States, to completely Destroy the Invading army.
Then this little thing called the internet ?  Ya think, their would be, NO other country to help the people in the USA ?
Then this, 'Bundy' thing.  What, Stopped, the Government ?
They could have had, ONE  tank, One bomb/airplane, One gas canister.  It would have been SO  Simple, to just eliminate them, push them aside.
Why Didn't that happen  ?????

Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed.
My Argument is, without the 2nd, the government just would have called in a air strike.  
What was that yellow star that was to be sewn to your outside clothing, just so we know. It is, 'Reasonable' ya know.

Of course, forget any recent History. Why was the USA never invaded by foreign forces during WWll, (their was un manned attempts, which were unsuccessful)

“… By my logic, for the 2nd to be equally pertinent now as it was when written, our usage of personal firearms would be equal to, or greater than the governments. …”

Before it was written, it was Less, than opposing forces. After it was written, their was a very brief period in time, where is was, ‘equal’, that lasted about 8 years. After that, the firearms the USA Military had, exceeded what the Civilians had.

The mart-mart shotgun, is a very foolish argument.
          It is the Bigger Picture.
A sniveling, crooked, snide, town council member, will steel all the money he can, anyway he can. And when caught, will be  Voted out, and run and hide. Because, their is NO way, he will face the, mart-mart shotgun.
The 2nd, is NOT only Freedom. It has a great deal of History, and is very powerful.
Kinna like the Stars and Strips.
It, actually a piece of cloth, with dyed threads.  In that respect, it is just like a old sock. Lay in a Ditch, Rot, Burned, thrown in the Trash.
YET, what does the Stars and Strips Represent ???????????
Yea for some, it is just a dyed piece of cloth. For others, (the Majority of Citizens),
the Stars and Strips, represents,  Something else.

I have the same book.

Eegore wrote on 06/05/18 at 10:18:18:

"Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed."

“… Ah but your argument is, we are beyond that now, the 2nd is not needed.”
That is not my argument.   I feel the 2nd Amendment is outdated. …”

Their is a difference between, ’Not Needed’, and, ‘Outdated’.
    Not much, but their is a difference.

“… Much as many military aircraft are outdated however I do not think removing those aircraft from service without an upgraded version that is pertinent to today, and potential future uses is a valid change…”

If the above is referring to the 2nd.  and “…potential future uses is a valid change…”.
    Then why stop at re-writing the 2nd, do all 10.

“… As it stands until 2008 there was no ruling that the 2nd applied specifically to personal civilian ownership.  There is a constant argument about the phrase "well regulated militia" and unless the 2008 ruling is overturned that phrase could be removed or otherwise amended. …”

Yep, a, ‘Ruling’, Not the Meaning !  Their are at 200 + words, that the Primary meaning 250 years ago, is quite different than their primary meaning today.

“… To try to explain to people all the imaginary scenarios where US citizens try to fight at the expense of millions of lives with their sporting goods guns is futile.  Very few people think their neighborhood watch is going to hold up well against the US Government,  …”

Again applying a action, to a, ’supposed’ result.  A result that, (see below)

“ …  and even fewer think it would ever use ballistic means anyway since there more modern methods of practical control over a civilian population….”

Just think, eliminating, changing, the 2nd, will make it SO easy to install,  “…modern methods of practical control over a civilian population…”.
I see your point, get rid of the ‘outdated 2nd, and re-do it so it will no longer protect any others. Most notably the 1st.  Then, we, the Citizens, can become Just like the, ’Subjects’, of the ‘other’ Civilized Countries.  

“…Murdering your own citizens with government equipment is not the primary go-to method anymore for the US, that was gone decades ago….”

After the 2nd is removed/changed, the 1st will follow, and the above will never happen because,    that government, NEEDS, workers,   who Pay Huge Taxes, and are totally subservient. And if they complain, BECAUSE their is no 2nd or 1st, it is Off , (never to be seen again)
And the F.O.I.A.   “What was that !”

“…  The language of the 2nd infers that US citizens will use their personally owned weaponry to put up a fight against the US Government, and that is less and less realistic every year.  If we are in a house to house battle with our own government then I do not think our personal firearms are a: "guarantee against arbitrary government” …”

And AGAIN.
Just like some see the Flag of this Nation, the same as a old sock.
Some see the 2nd, as a infringement, to being, a, ‘Civilized Nation’, which has neither the 1st or the 2nd.

My point is if  you want to regulate guns much more than they currently are, there should be a constitutional amendment defining 'well regulated militia' for today's world.

Define it very clearly. Let's say it's defined as each state's National Guard. Maybe you say only the national guard armory's can hold semi-auto weapons with large capacity clips. Only bolt action, limited capacity high caliber weapons are legal for citizens to own and posses in their homes.

Is that what you're thinking a "well regulated Militia" is?

Why such a fuss over the words:
             “well regulated Militia”
Some think they mean, what they would would mean today !
Instead of interrupting what they Meant, When the 2nd was written.
Which, ‘well regulated Militia’  =   EVERYBODY !

That is like saying Charles Dickens is ‘Outdated’, and his works need to be changed.
Because he used the word:  Drawer,  in reference to a ‘bartender’.
        Which,  (TODAY)  is a part of a piece of furniture.
Used to be,  underwear, or a person who draws on a account, or a artist.
Or the Really old, ‘Outdated’.  !  A bartender
As Dickens wrote in 1860, about the early 1770’s.
Yep, that pesky Dickens,  Got to, ‘UP-Date’ his works.

So without, “well regulated Militia”, some quick thoughts.

The necessity to  keep the States and Nations, Free States and Nations. The right of the Citizens, to keep and bear Arms, for any lawful reason, shall not be infringed.

To  keep free States and Nations and Citizens,  the right of the Citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The necessity to  keep the Citizens in the U.S.A Free and Safe,  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the omission of:  
‘This gun good, that one bad’
‘This magazine good, that one bad’
“This ammunition good, that one bad”
Which are no doubt, what the ultra-liberals, will argue highly about.
And once that path is cut to that slope,
It, will become, VERY slippery !

 If law and rights in the US were dictated by Dickens work I would recommend an amending system to his works that could be updated as the nation changes.  Comparing Dickens to the US Constitution is not applicable as the documents have zero shared effects on the right of US citizens.  

 The assessment isn't about the definition of each word in specific segments of time, it is about how the words collectively make a sentence that concludes in a statement that is inaccurate now, but was not at the time it was written.  I am not recommending we look at each individual word and update it, which is what the Dickens analogy presents.

 The previous post by Webstermark is an example of how the phrase "Well regulated militia" is so broad.  By leaving it there the argument propagates to no end, as not everyone would by modern standards agree they are part of a militia.

 If more people believed personally owned firearms could actually stop the government by those means alone then I'd agree more with the original quote in the first post.

 I think the problem is there isn't enough consensus that "well regulated militia" at that time meant the entire free populace.  

 Is there any references to research done on this topic?  Specifically the interpretation of how a "militia" was defined in the 1700's among the Colonies?  First thing I wonder is why its left out of so much of the NRA education, even in the headquarters lobby I noticed its been removed.  Seems if regulated militia meant all citizens the NRA should jump on that and start putting it in their material, given it can be supported with facts.  

 All I have ever seen is that the "militia" at that time was to be considered state militias as that is the only definition verified to be documented in writing in 1751.  So now we are proposing that it meant all (free) citizens, and that by that definition all free US citizens today are part of their respective state militia.  Is there any documentation that every free citizen of age automatically became part of their state militia?  

 I think Cooley in 1880 or 81 outlined it pretty well.