2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

I was thinking of various remedies for the current state of gun violence and death throughout our land. It occurred to me that the perceived "right" to "bear arms" is an "Amendment" to the Constitution, thus it was not a part of the original Constitution. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. What if the 2nd Amendment were repealed like the 18th Amendment? What if the 2nd Amendment were modified? 

It seems that everywhere I read of the Founders and their ideas, the notion of an ancient right to self defense and the protection from tyranny was at the forefront of their minds. It had been less time between the suffering under the British Crown, and their attempts to disarm the populace than has been between now and the writing of the Bill of Rights. During the Founders times it would have been easier to form a militia against government tyranny than now. The best firearms of the day were single shot smooth bore rifles and cannon. If a determined population was a mind too, they would have had an easier time of matching a government's firepower. That condition is long past.

In this 21st Century era, considering the military technology that has emerged with it, the people would not be able to match the firepower of the federal government. Every time I read about "militias" they were "well regulated" militias who were either under the command of the state or the federal government. I think there is good reason for that.

If there are many private militias in the various states, which one of them are going to be the arbiter of what constitutes federal tyranny? One private militia might deem one federal action perfectly reasonable. while another private militia might consider the same action to be tyranny. Even the thought of such a thing brings thoughts of rival private militias going to war against one another because of it.

In my estimation the best and closest modern match to the primitive militias of the Revolution is the National Guard and a Citizen Army. Shall a Citizen Army raise against itself or impose tyranny against its own families? I doubt it.

In this world we now live in, the best a private militia could hope to do against a tyrannical federal government is a protracted guerrilla warfare action. Let's face facts. If despite having a civic population fully engaged in the political process, and having a freedom loving, tyranny hating Citizen Army, our federal government falls into tyranny, we'll have big problems. How would a private militia stand against a tyrannical federal government? How would a private army match the firepower? A truly desperate tyrant might even employ nuclear weapons upon our own citizens to maintain power.

Basically we need to all sit down and revisit these ancient rights and notions in light of the developments of the 21st Century. Developments that the Forefathers could have never predicted. Our way of life, our society, our human condition and our entire planet have little to no resemblance to the days of 1776. We have far greater experience than the Founders. We should be building on our greater understanding and knowledge. We need to recognise that the needs of today are far different than they were 240 years ago. We have to change our methods and policy to reflect the changes and deal with the new dangers.

Consider the following:

Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".

Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.

Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.

William Rawle did warn that "this right [to bear arms] ought not...be abused to the disturbance of the public peace" .

Joseph Story: "And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.

Look what happened with private militias during George Washington's times. The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power. Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file. Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns. In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production. Congress did subsequently pass "[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines" on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection. Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia's poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Pre-Constitution_background