< whole lotta snippin' goin' on >

>>>>>My take:
>>>>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>>>>>A milita is needed to ensure freedom
>>>>>
>>>>>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>>>>>People can have their guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing in the amendment that says guns are only for the militia.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If allowing the citizenry to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment is not for the explicit purpose of having a well regulated militia, then why bother to mention the 'well regulated militia' at all. Why wouldn't they have written the 2nd amendement to simply say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the ownership of guns is not resulting in a well regulated militia, then I contend that it is not fulfilling the purposes of the 2nd amendment and should probably be abandoned, or (worse) updated to remove that phrase.
>>>
>>>I think it is stating that the reason it is a constitutional amendment is because it enpowers citizens to create a milita if need be.
>>>
>>Then why the words "well regulated". Sorry guys, but I'm absolutely convinced that you are reading the amendment in the way you would like it to be interpreted instead of in the way it is actually worded. It says 'well regulated militia' for a reason. Those guys were smart people, they weren't illiterates who couldn't say what they wanted without being really vague.
>
>Interesting idea. Here is a link I am going to read later: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I'll read it too. Thanks for the link.

Here's another question that bothers me a lot. Let's take for example, the 18th amendment to the constitution. That one abolished liquor from the U.S. and it was ratified on January 16, 1919. It was subsequently repealed by the 21st Amendement ratified on December 5, 1933 (just in time for xmas apparently). Ignoring, for themoment, the original stupidity of the 18th amendment, the point I want to make is simply that amendements can be made and they can be changed, or even repealed by further amendments.

For some reason though, everybody talks about the 2nd amendement as though it is somehow sacrosanct and, well, different from all the other amendements in that it may never be questioned, changed, repealed, or even discussed except in some sort of veneration and awe.

I know people like their guns, but what is it about that amendment that makes it so holy compared with other amendments such that it may never be questioned?