[samman]

I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?

[novembermike]

That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.

[15155]

Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make.

If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.

Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.

[Retric]

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.

[wyclif]

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily

I laughed out loud when I read this. You are very, very naive. If this is representative of your understanding of how US constitutional law works, you shouldn't be commenting.

[15155]

Propose the amendment!

How are you going to get it ratified?

And once it is ratified, how are you going to contend with state constitutions?

And once those are out of the way, how are you actually going to pry firearms from the hands of their owners?

There are orders of magnitude more private firearm owners than sworn persons in the United States, and these groups largely overlap.

[Pyxl101]

You misunderstand the meaning of "militia". The term militia as used in the constitution essentially means the entire populace, all people capable of fighting. The US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller examines the meaning of the words and phrases in the Second Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

An armed populace was viewed as crucial during the founding of the US because when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. The modern era demonstrates that this is still relevant: see Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, etc. There's a great documentary on Netflix that shows, from footage on the ground, what transpired while the Ukraine crisis unfolded. Ukraine's local self-defense forces gave the protesters a foothold that eventually took down the unjust government (at least, that's the narrative - I'm only remarking on their effectiveness as a fighting force, and their relevance to political change).

[hga]

Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?

Echoing Pyxl101, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who will guard the guards themselves?"). We gun owners believe we provide a needed bulwark against the worst forms of tyranny, and certainly notice that 20th Century tyrants for some inexplicable reason fell disarming targeted populaces was a prerequisite to slaughtering them wholesale. Given what an abattoir the 20th Century turned out to be, maybe you should seriously consider that bit of unpleasant history?