Feel free to move.

Thank you for being objective and fair in your post.
Well the militia is not a requirement for people to keep and bear arms. To answer the question though let's look at the definitions of militia. There are two, sometimes three, but the first two are so close it may as well be one. A militia is an armed force who support a military. Or anyone eligeable for military service. That means that anyone old enough to join the military up to the cut off age is part of the militia. I don't have the numbers, but it's higher than the standing military. There are 320 million people here, let's assume that 1/3 of them are of the age to be eligible for military service. That's a pretty conservative estimate. That means there are over 100 million militia members in the US. There are at least three times as many guns and more than enough ammo here as there are militia members as previously defined. The fact that the government isn't dumb enough to turn the military loose on the people should be a clear answer as to how effective 100 million armed people are as a deterrent. Most service members have said they would not ever attack American citizens.

Point 2. I do see those as avenues for the opposition of tyranny. However, if they fail, we need the ability to physically fight tyranny.

Point 3. America is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic which employs a heavily regulated and perverted version of democracy. They already violate the bill of rights all the time. The bill of rights, which was establish to limit government, is not legally subject to infringement from any source. They already are an authoritarian regime. They became one as soon as they started breaking the law and reinterpriting the rights expressed in the bill of rights as privilages.

@jayneonacobb There's a couple new thoughts that I wouldn't have thought:
1: armed militia is a deterrent - which is true and
2: some (including you) no long consider the U.S. to be a democracy (in which the people control who is in government and the government works for the people).
Thanks for your reply, mate.

@SamKerry no problem, friend. 1 the armed people are a deterent to the militia, military and government. 2 the united states has never been a democracy. It has always been a constitutional republic.

Well, first let me explain that there is a problem, but that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the definition of the second amendment. Arms is defined as all weapons and armaments. They used that term knowing full well that weapons technology would advance, as it has since the first stone was used as a weapon. Who do you think makes the arms for our military and police? You guessed it, the people. The government doesn't manufacture anything anymore. So if people make those weapons, they must have the ability to own them as they may not be purchased by the government. You can buy an F-16 if you have the cash. Private security firms often have their own helicopters and mounted weapons. Those are owned by the company, which is owned by private citizens.

@jayneonacobb And what about the rest of my comment? Who can own arms?

@bingst the people can own arms. That is clearly worded in the second half of the second amendment. I owned my first gun as soon as I was born. It was given to me by my father. As far as the missiles are concerned, if I own the company that makes them, then I own them until they are sold. That's how capitalism works. I own the company, the company owns the weapons, they are my weapons.

@jayneonacobb I can kind of understand why you have problems discussing this. You seem to be dodging. Let me give some more specific examples, in light of strict construction. Could a 5-year old with the right amount of money for the purchase buy a handgun or a missile? Or grenades or rocket-propelled grenades?

@bingst I bought my first gun at age 11, my father had to hand the seller the cash that I earned. I bought the gun, he purchased it. There is a big difference there as purchase requires paperwork, buying required money. So yes, a 5 year old can buy a hand gun, as long as the seller takes the money from a legal guardian. Where do you buy a missile? It's not like you can go to missiles-r-us. But I can buy a company that manufacturers missiles. It doesn't have to be publicly traded either. That means I can buy the stock as a private citizen from a company when I but the company. That makes their unsold inventory mine upon purchase of the company.

@jayneonacobb I'm talking about how things would work without any gun legislation... without any regulations... as the 2nd amendment prohibits any infringement, as I understand it that is your position.

@bingst the second amendment expressly forbids infringement. It also specifically defines the right to keep and bear arms as a right of the people. Your arguments are based on assumption, feeling and misunderstanding of that amendment and as such is not a legitament argument.

@jayneonacobb What argument am I making? I am just asking questions of your viewpoint, which seems to be strict adherence to the 2nd amendment, meaning there should be no laws or regulations amounting to infringement, correct? If so, then why will you not answer my questions directly?

@bingst your argument is clear in your line of questioning. I answered your question. You just don't accept the answer.

I will be happy to do so. Education often dispelles irrational fears.though I doubt anyone will listen given the data I have at hand.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You will note that it is the right of the people to keep and bare arms, not a militia. A militia in this context is defined as anyone capable of military service. Gun control isn't legal in the US, but using both hands gives you better control over your weapon. Don't let your feelings cloud your judgment. Also there are exception. If a person is deemed by society as dangerous them they are committed or imprisoned. Being wards of the state they are stripped of certain rights as they are incapable of comprehending their legal use.

That is why I asked. As an outsider, divided by a common language, the wording of the second amendment is ambiguous at best and nonsense if taken literally.

As I have stated previously, I don't give a shit if you want to make guns compulsory for everyone and have shootouts on every street corner - it's not my problem (although on a global scale it has implications) - I am genuinely interested in what you find so great about the right to carry a gun.

Ironically, you are the one arguing for gun control in that there need to be checks for those that you don't think are safe to carry guns. Where does it say the right to bear arms except for those that we don't like or feel will not help keep a free state?

If a mentally ill person has been sectioned as UNABLE to comprehend what is legal, then OK, they don't need weapons in an institution. However, those outside of institutions and those that have served their time are out because they are deemed to be safe to be in society do have an understanding of what is legal or otherwise. So by your interpretation above, should be allowed to bear arms.

Do you not see the conflict of stating that the right to bear arms cannot be removed and then stating you should remove that right for some groups?

Not the rights expressed in the bill of rights, the laws of physics, facts, or countless other things.

Let's do a simple thought experiment. E=Mc2. That is unchangeable. Also you are way off topic here. I asked for people to show me where in the second amendment it says "reasonable gun control." It doesn't. You lose.