America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
I know you believe in what you say; however I must tell you that in spite of the specific language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any militia. I know it doesn't make sense, but allow me to explain.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any militia. Some people may be surprised by the Court's decision because they have not been trained how to read legal documents. Yes, the Second Amendment has the introductory clause “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State; ” however,according to the SCOTUS these words merely state a purpose and are not operative. It may seem confusing, but essentially the prefatory clause has the same legal effect as the whereases in a motion. You can have a hundred whereases, but until you get to the wherefore, nothing is binding. The bottom line is that the SCOTUS has said that gun ownership is for personal use such as self protection and has nothing whatsoever to do with any type of militia. Since only the SCOTUS is authorized to interpret the Constitution, the Document means exactly what SCOTUS says it means; therefore, the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with any type of militia. Whether you agree or not, the language of the Constitution means different things to different people but the interpretation rendered by the SCOTUS is the only one that counts. The following links may help:
“For many years, scholars and anti-gun proponents have argued that the Second Amendment provides a right to own guns only in connection with service in a militia, and that this right should not extend to private individuals. That argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the right to own a gun is not connected with service in a militia; rather, it is a personal right to own a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as self-defense within the home.”
Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com
“Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units. Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints....
“The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=whe...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
NOTE: The Court also ruled that the Second Amendment did not bar the government from imposing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
