Without a well regulated militia you would end up with mob rule; say a black guy reportedly  rapes a white girl in Mississippi.  A couple hundred armed citizens march on the jail house.....now a well regulated militia would require that the commander or Colonel, call out the militia, inform them where when and why, and then lead his militia to the designated engagement. Time of think about what you are doing and why..does it pass the smell test That is a small but important difference in the two scenarios; although in the Trump Tweet era, it might seam an even smaller difference.

Ask a simpler question.

Should private citizens be legally allowed to own high caliber, high capacity, semi-automatic rifles.

Right now, it's very, very difficult to legally own a fully automatic weapon and I would think 99% of the people agree with that restriction.

so there is a precedent with regards to firearm types.

So with that in mind, again: Should private citizens be legally allowed to own high caliber, high capacity, semi-automatic rifles.

E, spend a minute using your imagination.
What potential threats existed?
Just someone out hunting seeing a group of strangers was cause for Caution.
Until you know what they want,you don't know if they are a threat.
Are they scouting?
Or just passing through?
Probably not a bad idea to round up a few guys and keep an eye on them.

The members of the community were responsible for the Survival Of the community.

  The problem I have with using my imagination to assess how things were done that long ago is creating a connection to how that's done now.  My assessment is that the 2nd is outdated, and bringing up more instances of events that don't happen today isn't helping.  

 If the logic is that when the 2nd was implemented it meant all free US citizens, then why if times have changed we can not update the 2nd so that the topic of "well regulated militia" isn't the constant, (and it is constant, like every single time theres a discussion about the 2nd) equation thrown into the mix?  

 The first post indicated that today personally owned firearms are a guarantee against arbitrary government, and the examples to defend any challenges to that are ones from well over 100 years ago.

 So my attempt to address "well regulated militia" meaning "all free citizens" is not working as I am not accurately communicating my perception of what it is I don't understand so lets just say that "Well regulated militia" has always meant "all free citizens" and does now as well.

 My understanding is that the claim is the 2nd is a "guarantee" against arbitrary "government", not kids on a sidewalk.  

 Intimidating kids on a sidewalk is not comparable to using personal firearms against the military.  That analogy is useful if the argument was "Remove" the 2nd amendment and I have said nothing about that, in actuality I have said I do not want it removed.  It would also be useful if the statement in the first post said the 2nd helps good guys with a gun, but it does not, it said "government" and as such that is the statement I was intending to address.

 I propose the "well regulated militia" be updated, not removed, in a capacity that a replacement is implemented immediately upon removal.  This replacement should mitigate any concerns of removal of the phrase "well regulated militia" as it would result in material being put into its respective place within the 2nd amendment.  

 This replacement should be applicable to modern day situations, or the more accepted amending process could be used.  The amending process would not seek removal without replacement either.

 I feel it is outdated.  That is not meant to infer a removal or in any capacity a reduction in its modern day usefulness.  Any replaced or amended material would be with intent to modernize and strengthen the idea that "well regulated militia" means by todays standard "all free US citizens"  

 I am not suggesting a removal of the 2nd amendment, I am questioning how its a guarantee as it applies to modern day applications.  No removal would take place in the method I am suggesting.

"Next, the fact of a Shotgun vs a M-1 Tank.
No Contest, everyone knows that !
 It is the, ‘FACT’, that it CAN,
that makes the 2nd so powerful."

 This doesn't make sense to me specifically everyone knows that it can do what?

E, the well regulated militia isn't the constant.

That's what the antigunners
Say.
The constant is


The RIGHT of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

"And you do not give any credence to the fact,
that the 2nd, by simply being in place,
can be MORE  powerful than a  H bomb."

 I don't believe that by any means.  What is described to me is whats happening in Syria, and that's working out so well for everyone.

"Yet, removing, 'well regulated militia',  WILL, start a  Bigger fight, as to  BAN GUNS."    I am not suggesting that it be removed without a replacement that would be implemented immediately.  Upon removal an updated and pertinent to modern day and potential future security language would replace the phrase "well regulated militia" or we can use the normal amending process to do the same thing.

 I think its time for a new fight, than listening to the same old one over and over, especially since its pretty obvious that the anti-gun movement is gaining political influence.  I look at it as an argue the same point as you lose ground vs. a change the argument scenario.

 I do not nor have I ever suggested that Food related news networks write replacement material, not do I think the NRA should be exclusively responsible either.  The current legal method should be implemented.  Even if this happens it still wont guarantee that there would be no arbitrary government here.

 

verslagen1 wrote on 06/06/18 at 10:41:24:

Does anyone see a future dispute over the Louisiana Purchase?...
Now we see the real reason for the 2nd amendment.
Protection of the state,... not from it...
Those days are long past...