It is more relevant now. You have an obligation to protect your family and owning a weapon or two........the ones that go bang.......is almost a necessity in some parts of our great country.
It is more relevant now for more reasons than I have time to type. Plus they are fun to take out on the range after you have finished your honey-do list. Hitting center mass is just as relaxing as cutting the grass.

Welcome to ATS Adam. Please forward me a photo of yourself and your family, your current address, vehicle description and tag number. That way, if you are ever in a life or death situation, and I am present, I wont use my guns to defend your life/ the lives of your family out of respect for your wishes. Wouldnt want to stomp on your ant-gun convictions....

i don't own a gun myself but strongly believe it is the right to own, carry, and use such weapons. the provision wasn't put into to protect us from foreign enemies, it was to protect us from the scum bags we have in office now, and the ones that tried to rule us 200 years ago.
i am all for limiting it to rifles and pistols however, as no one needs an uzi, for hunting or defense well maybe the blind, but that is it. ^^

Originally posted by AdamLaw
For American citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms could have been relevant 200 years ago.

It is even more relevant today, IMO.

Question 1: In 2012, does the most militarized country in the world, with a budget of 700 billion dollars a year requires a well regulated militia with citizens armed and ready to protect the security of the State?

You are missing the elephant in the room with that question. The US was never intended to have a standing army like you describe. The ability to have a modern and trained people capable of defending the nation is quite feasible without the massive standing army we have.

Question 2: Is the 2nd amendment an individual’s right or a collective right?

It’s both. The right to defend yourself, ie. right to life, is a basic human right(individual.) The Bill of Rights represents the limits of government over a persons and human rights. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the people (collective) were never out-gunned by the government.

If it upholds the constitutionality of the federal law of 1934, it is for a reason that is not likely to set a law: the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the type of weapon involved in the case considered (a sawed-off shotgun), because it is not part of the usual weapons of a militia.

The government is the three branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each one, more than one or all three can be wrong at any given time over any given issue. It has happened in the past, is happening and will always happen.

Realize, the 2nd Amendment is the ultimate right in keeping the government in check. Is it surprising to think that they would manipulate it to their advantage? They have manipulated every other right and guarantee of the Constitution to increase their collective power and control over the people

Question 3: Should we conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess rocket launchers, bazookas or tanks if the times we live in makes it militia relevant weaponry?

Absolutely. Aside from the fact that the government should not have a standing military, the people should have the ability to have the same arms the government has access to on the presumption that government decides to become oppressive and/or tyrannical.

Twentieth-century Americans have rejected the principles of freedom of their ancestors. Believing that the socialist welfare state would provide them with a “safety net” of governmental security, they traded the liberty bequeathed to them by their ancestors for the paternalistic state. Thus, they adopted all the things to which their ancestors had said No: income taxation, welfare, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, and gun control.

Hornberger.

I have never seen this quote but it is quite telling.

First, let’s make the distinction that the people have not decided to adopt these things, but the representatives of the people. On that fact, we can argue that the representatives, for some time now, have not represented the people, but manipulated them for their own individual and corporate powers. With the exception of the prohibition act, very few laws that have been passed by congress or executive order or ever repealed, despite how contrary to freedom and the constitution they may be. Remember, from its inception, it is the nature of government to try and grow and become more powerful, despite any benevolent origins such as our own.

All the issues in the quote are directly responsible or related to the problems we have encountered as a nation and the issues we are now dealing with.

Question 4: Should the United States Of America take an active role in preventing criminal crimes by revoking the right to bear arms to American citizens?

It is not the government’s role to prevent crime. In fact, they cannot. They can only punish for crimes committed. A prohibition on something doesn’t deter involvement in that something; it only makes that something itself a crime. In that way, government isn’t deterring crime, but instead creating it. As such it only empowers itself and not the people.

To want to ban firearms one is making the following statements/assumptions:

- The government is benevolent and would never use authoritarian force against its people.
- Law enforcement is always going to be there to protect the citizenry from criminals.
- People are responsible to drive thousand pound heaps of metal 70 mph and elect people who declare and wage war but are not responsible enough to own or use a tool for their own defense.
- The 2nd Amendment is the only right that is out-dated.

At the core of all the debates on restriction or elimination of rights, and the problems we encounter these days, is the collapse of a moral, ethical and just society.