late wrote:The Founding Fathers didn't like militias, it was just a way to save money. They hoped the militias would slow an invading army long enough for them to put together an army, a real fighting force.
But now we have the most powerful military in the world, and our reserve forces, the National Guard, make any militia look silly, and very obsolete..
Governmental abuse is very rampant somewhere in the world. It will be far easier to build democracy in those places if there are
someone who can kill off those who resist change by oppressing others. The Second Amendment has to stay to preserve a means to stop the United States descending into them.
Besides, your argument on the strength difference between the military and (possible) militia is merely a technical reality. The Second Amendment is more about preserving the
legal possibility to build a militia comparable to regular military in power.
You may see me as against gun control, but I think no one will actually argue against gun control, just that
how it should be done. The spirit of the Amendment is that no limit should be from the initiative of the government, but what if the People agree to place a limit to protect themselves?