Originally Posted by Qbacca
1.My point is that the second amendment holds no water because true "militas" and armed citizens no longer play an important role in interstate warfare.
2.The second amendment is a clausal statement.
Because a well regulated militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
If the first is no longer true, the right can be infringed upon.
1. An armed militia is sort of like BYOB at a BBQ. If you go without a beer, you better run into a friend who can sport you one. With the situation in the world today, I would argue that it as important now for American Citizens to have guns as it was when the Constitution was written.
2.You have to prove point one before you can make point two at all, and are mistaken in any event, as the right to bear arms is not dependant on there being a need for an organized militia.
You may not like it, but I don't remember it being changed, it would hve been in the paper.
Benjamin, sometimes you can come across as well...lets just say the idiot meter does not always stay at zero when you get your blood up a bit on a discussion. Of course I am an idiot more often than not, but that is because I would rather be funny than smart.