And there is still argument in some sense against a standing army. I think given the realities of the global political arena, it's wise to have a standing army. However, because that was essentially made after the fact it should have also come with further restrictions. Practically speaking, the government may need to assume new responsibilities or technologies; but it should never e unrestricted in those means.
As to the militia; it's still necessary. The part of a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is still true. Even if we have a standing army to take care of our foreign wars (many of which we shouldn't engage in in the first place), the militia is important as well; including its ability to rise against the State if need be (if that State prove a significant threat to our freedom). Yet as the 2nd is written, the first part of the amendment is a necessity for the amendment. But it further states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". In short, because of the necessity of a well regulated militia in regards to keeping a free State, the individual right of the People to keep and bear Arms cannot be infringed upon.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville