Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

When you get me and frigidweirdo agreeing on so much over the course of a week, you know there is hope for this Country. I know he has me on ignore, but good job FW.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Dude, you are babbling. The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS. How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me. That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.

So you only want to quibble and win. Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.

 

[westwall]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Dude, you are babbling. The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS. How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me. That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.

So you only want to quibble and win. Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.

Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude. That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work. Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items. The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference. Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .

 

[Pop23]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items. The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference. Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .

Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Dude, you are babbling. The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS. How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me. That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.

So you only want to quibble and win. Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.

Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude. That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work. Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.

You've won. Accept your Trophy, here, take my sword, you want my wife (I certainly don't), and graciously move on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items. The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference. Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .

Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.

When I deal with Domestic Terrorists I don't have much to say to them, terrorist.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

That is the opinion of Scalia, and I don't recall he was there when the 2nd A. was written. In fact he went on and on in Heller to justify his political opinion and could only convince four others.

Learn to read English, and the Constitution will be opened to you. Otherwise you either shoot in the dark, or lie.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items. The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference. Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .

Two documents? I don't see two documents. I see one document, it's called the US Constitution.

Article V says, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, "

Article VI says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Seems pretty clear to me.

The Constitution says that all amendments to the Constitution are a part of the Constitution like any other part. The Constitution, which those amendments are a part of, are the supreme law of the land.

So, the Constitution says the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land like every other part.

It's that simple.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is Your story bro. Our Founding Fathers were more liberal than that; and included civil rights to limit Government propaganda and rhetoric, being executed into legal dogma.

Congress has no authority to deny or disparage the People from military service and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

 

[westwall]

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Dude, you are babbling. The Bill of Rights is an essential part of the COTUS. How you can claim that the Bill of Rights, which is the FOUNDATION of our legal system...has no legal standing is beyond me. That is such a warped interpretation of the COTUS as to be beyond belief.

So you only want to quibble and win. Fine, you win Oh great Quibbler.

Not understanding the COTUS, as you clearly don't, is not "quibbling" dude. That is you lacking basic understanding of the COTUS, and how our legal system is supposed to work. Instead of pouting, try educating yourself on more than howard zinn books of silliness.

You've won. Accept your Trophy, here, take my sword, you want my wife (I certainly don't), and graciously move on.

Dude, I don't care about "winning". I care that people, that would count you among them, understand the laws of this land and why they were written the way they were. That is all I care about.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

Wow, you sure showed me, didn't you. That was such a brilliant retort.

 

[westwall]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Imagine the country of Romania, ruled by a evil dictator, brought down by patriots who began their revolution with single shot target pistols. Now, imagine how much lower the death toll among the patriots would have been if they had better weapons to begin with. You seem to forget that the military has to sleep sometime. You seem to forget that we have been fighting in Afghanistan for over a decade and the little bastards armed with rifles are STILL FIGHTING.

It seems it is you who are not following current events.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.

Amusing.

 

[Pop23]

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

How on Earth is the Constitution based on the Bill of Rights?

You can quibble with "symantics" all day, but until you understand some simple basic stuff, you're always going to be talking about "symantics", whatever the fuck that is.

People like you really should not be allowed to vote if you can't even understand simple basic facts about the US political system.

Let me guess, you voted for Trump.

Everyone except you can read. Both documents are identical for the first 10 items. The Bill of Rights didn't call them Amendments though but that's about the only difference. Careful now, you are about to have the wrath of the great Quibbler come down upon you .

Well, at least you've cut your word count down, one can only read so much idiocy in one setting.

When I deal with Domestic Terrorists I don't have much to say to them, terrorist.

I guess you could go with that, but here's a bit of advice.

If I were you (and thank the good lord I'm not), I'd just keep talking to them, You'd bore them to death and save on the cost of bullets. Or, on the other hand, they might just laugh themselves dead. Either way, YOU SAVE THE MONEY!

You can thank me later

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

We aren't governed by any part of the Bill of Rights. We are governed by the Constitutions of the United States and the many States. As nice and lofty as the Bill of Rights is, it's just another piece of parchment, nothing more.

You are arguing that the state constitutions are what governs us? No. The Bill of Rights IS the US Constitution. No, it is not all of the US Constitution, but it is part of the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights sets the standards. No state constitution can override what the US Constitution states. And the Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is based on the Bill of Rights but the Bill of Rights has absolutely no legal standing. We can quibble with symantics all day long.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

Wow, you sure showed me, didn't you. That was such a brilliant retort.

Ya think? I see you are easily entertained, as well.

The response is merely factual.

 

[toobfreak]

If the same rules applied then and now,

BUT THEY DON'T. End of argument. Reading the OP, I don't see how any of it is even relevant to the title of the thread!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nice, except for its inclusion within the BILL OF RIGHTS, which of course would make zero sense using your logic. But it’s there, so.

Yours is the nice story Bro.

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

The thought that a private citizen (Other than a well prepared Multi Billionaire with his own private military) can even last but a few minutes against the force of the US Military is absurd. Luckily, there is a military tradition and law written into the Military UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that is like the Military's version of the Constitution of the US, that bars this type of military action. Not even a President can wildly expect the Military to follow that order and remain in power for very long.

The first half of the 2nd amendment has really been out of meaning since the National Guard Act of 1917. I imagine that some Multi Billionaire could buy a small country and start building a force that might last a few days, months or more but no on the continental US. Due to the various weapons laws (we can't even call them firearms anymore) they would be stopped long before they gain the weapons to have a ghost of a chance. Same goes for a state accumulating those weapons even though they can legally do so.

The Second amendment really didn't stay current much past 1850. AFter that, Firearms started accelerate to the point where only Governments could afford them. Much like the KIng and his Armory in the 12th century.

I have never demanded that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. What I do suggest is we need to amend it to keep it current. Make it more specific to today and less ambiguous.

One citizen no

How abut a few million citizens?