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.
Why? So we can defend ourselves against urban hoards? Is that really what they had in mind when they wrote the amendment? I don't think so. So what good is the second amendment in terms of keeping the people "safe" from the gov?
For protection of the nation, we have a military. The purpose of a well regulated militia is what? To defend ourselves against whom?
I think that supports my point that the purpose of the second amendment is obsolete. It's one of those ideas in the constitution that is now outdated. I'm sure it made good sense at the time, but the infrastructure of our country has completely changed.
When America was young, there wasn't anything like the large centralized military we have now. There is still a valid concern that our government could turn against us, and oppress us. Of course, they have cluster bombs, chemical weapons, and nukes...Have we created a society so dangerous that we should all be armed when walking around town? I really don't think that's what they had in mind when they wrote the amendment.
If the amendment is obsolete, why have it? If the reason for gun ownership has changed, shouldn't the amendment reflect reality?
You could argue that because the amendment became obsolete and because of the open-ended nature of the wording, it's actually caused a problem. Who would disagree that the mountain of illegal guns in inner cities is a bad thing? Even the hard core gun nuts don't like the idea of criminals with guns. But that's what we have. Do we let that situation continue to get worse? Do we give up and say: It's the wild west out there. The cops are useless other than to pick up the bodies. Everybody get a gun. Is that really the best solution? I don't think so. And yet in the US a "militia" group has been arrested with a huge arsenal.
Is the status quo ok? Should we leave the amendment alone? Could we do better?
Hmmm... could local and state police, being that they aren't federal, count as a well regulated militia?
I have noticed pointedly the huge wave of shootings that are not occurring as people carry openly. In particular, many Starbucks have not been bullet riddled and hundreds of people not killed. I am not against gun ownership, but I am for forms of gun control. Even the NRA agrees with me. You could argue that the second amendment is a root cause for criminals owning guns. Guns are just too easy to obtain.
And I think that we have established that the point of the second amendment when it comes to protecting yourself from the government is moot. That reason no longer exists.
So the colonial (or 2010) militia can not reasonably (or practically) rise against the government (FBI, SWAT, National guard, etc), but can certainly protect a neighborhood during riots or looting. I don't think insurrection was the only intent of the 2A - that was merely to have access to and experience of firearms for whatever purpose.
The insurrection angle is just the drama scenario that the rightwing like to use. Should we be standing up for the rights of armed goobers who want to kill cops for Jesus? Does the busting of this militia reveal the slow encroachment by the gov to control the people?
Yes, I realize these particular goobers were more likely to shoot themselves than a bunch of cops...
Does the second amendment have any value in terms of protecting the citizens from the gov? The answer to that is pretty simple. Armed insurrection against the government is not a right protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court clarified protected activities under the 2nd Amendment just last year, and will do so again this year. If you read the decision, you'll see those are things like hunting, and home and personal protection.