Doesn't the currently military infrastructure make the 2nd amendment obsolete?

[The_Truth]

People also forget that at the time the 2nd Amendment was created the average citizen needed guns to hunt for food. There were no supermarkets in the 1700s. How many people are hunting for their next meal in 2018?

 

[unit321]

It was written with the right intentions but if the U.S. military wanted to over throw the government, armed militias aren't going to stop it.
Tanks, drones, surface to air missiles, bombs, all make the right useless. Back when they wrote that amendment, civilians was rocking the same fire power as the military.
In this country there was a time civilians couldn't even conduct a peaceful protest without violence from the police.
If people want to keep gun laws using the 2nd amendment excuse looks silly. I would respect advocates if they would be honest and say it's a billion dollar industry and billions would be lost.

So, the founding fathers knew the dangers of not having power if you aren't armed. If none of the colonists had weapons, it couldn't have happened.
To prevent future problems, such as a new President or government that over-rules the people, or something akin to the British government/monarchy, well, then you can fight back.
Nowadays, the military doesn't make the 2nd amendment obsolete, the laws about weapons' ownership does.
Guns are "affordable" by the common person. But things like jets, missiles, tanks, naval ships and sub are not. But, there are rich people that could afford some things.
Anyway, if the US government decides to run by dictatorship, i.e. no longer a democracy, then a militia can be formed to fight back. The only way that option can exist would be the right to bear arms. If you think about it, if England gave control back to the queen, then, she could do whatever. No one is armed to fight back.

 

[unit321]

People also forget that at the time the 2nd Amendment was created the average citizen needed guns to hunt for food. There were no supermarkets in the 1700s. How many people are hunting for their next meal in 2018?

Low-income people in the rural areas do. You wouldn't believe it if you don't know any personally.
They store the meat from the game they kill in freezers.

 

[JahFocus CS]

People also forget that at the time the 2nd Amendment was created the average citizen needed guns to hunt for food. There were no supermarkets in the 1700s. How many people are hunting for their next meal in 2018?

Pretty irrelevant considering the 2nd Amendment does not mention hunting as a premise to validate the right itself.

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me

 

[I Really Mean It]

White supremacist Neo Nazis have already taken over the military. A quiet coup has been occurring across America for a few decades, the extreme right solidifying its position before its coming out party with Donald Trump. They've achieved almost everything they wanted, which is one of the reasons gun sales are down. Any black man advocating for gun control, with what we're about to face, is a clown who is probably conspiring with the enemy.

 

[ThatTruth777]

it was also written because they wanted to ensure that enslaved/captured black people wouldn't revolt successfully and whoop their ass

 

[Vilify]

That's why I laugh when I hear people say gun ownership prevents govt tyranny. Smh.

 

[JahFocus CS]

it was also written because they wanted to ensure that enslaved/captured black people wouldn't revolt successfully and whoop their ass

And we're still in bondage, so in 2018, that's what gun control advocates are ensuring.

 

[Mind Over Thirst]

If the government decides to flip the script it’s a wrap. For everybody. Americans talk a lot of shyt but are p*ssy in general. One good shock and awe campaign fools will give up their guns no problem. But after that with the country in a weakened position, China coming in and taking over everything.

 

[The_Truth]

Pretty irrelevant considering the 2nd Amendment does not mention hunting as a premise to validate the right itself.

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me

How the hell is it irrelevant to point out the obvious fact that guns were essential part of survival at the time the Amendment was written? It's called common sense. Something that most gun nuts lack when interpreting the constitution.