>>And in the absense of a 'well regulated militia', what does one make out of the 2nd amendment? How can you insist on only part of an amendment (the part you like, of course) being upheld. Either the whole amendment should be honoured or none of it. Why isn't the NRA insisting on the 'well regulated militia' part of the amendment as passionatley as they insist on the 'right to bear arms' portion? You're paying them; you should insist on it.
>>
>>It seems clear that the NRA isn't really much interested in the 2nd amendment. They're only interested in having guns, and the 2nd amendment (part of it anyway), is merely a convenience they feel they can use to that end.
>>
>>This is cherry picking.
>
>Have you ever read any NRA literature? Looked at their web site? If not, how can you tell me what they are or are not interested in? The 2nd Amendment is only one part of the argument. Indulge me and do a little research.

Ok, you're going to have to help me out here. I've been all over www.nra.org including the FAQ, and I see nothing anywhere that supports a well regulated militia. About the only thing I can find regarding militia at all is the argument (in the faq and a couple of other places) that the part of the amendment that talks about militia is not really relevant (my words in paraphrase). Everything on the site seems entirely devoted to 'the right to bear arms' (including assault weapons). So please, if there is anything on the web site that presses for a well regulated militia, you're going to have to point me to it.

Also, if the argument is anywhere not based on the right to bear arms and it's inviolability due to the 2nd amendment, you're going to have to point me to that too. It seems, as far as I can tell, that the whole argument about the individuals' right to bear arms is based on the fact that the 2nd amendment says that such right 'shall not be infringed'. In fact, that idea about the right not being infringed appears all over the site.

And Daniel, I know how sometimes things come across in a post in a way that seems more curt than intended, so I hope you understand that, while you and I do have a fundamental disagreement here, I honestly am interested in the discussion. I might seem sarcastic sometimes, but I think that's only because I am.