"MY point is that if you consider the 2nd amendment to be invalid, because of a change in the society,..."

Bruce...who said invalid was the operative word? Grab suggested that the the phrasing and interpretation used 250 years ago should be rethought. That's why we have a process for amending. It is also the case that the 2nd amendment IS a bit ambiguous in that 'milita' bit. It 'feels' to me and many others that they were saying that the people should have the right to "bear arms" when acting AS a militia!

Of course, you and many gun owners & collectors automatically read that as something close to unlimited freedom to possess firearms in myriad forms.

So...what does our claim that the 2nd amendment should be clarified and tightened have to do with the other amendments? One can claim that freedom of speech should be curtailed, but the arguments are not related except by awkward rhetorical twisting. Guns ARE a serious danger...we have bodies to prove it. Free speech is a bit harder to demonize, though slippery attempts are made everyday in some quarters. (They don't argue against it, they just find little 'exceptions'.)

Sorry, Bruce, but this "look at all my hypothetical counter examples" routine for every argument is wearing pretty thin...*grin*. How about a BIG dose of Pragmatism....it'll make you feel better.