Grab,

MY point is that if you consider the 2nd amendment to be invalid, because of a change in the society, HOW can you object if someone considers the 1st, or other amendment, as invalid? Free speech? OK when you could only address a crowd, but with the internet... FAR too dangerous.


"So let's see where we are...
- I've been through the reasoning behind that Amendment.
- I've shown that the reasons it was put in place don't apply today."

Which I, for one DO NOT agree with.


"- I've shown that even if it did apply, you'd need to be in the modern equivalent of the militia (National Guard) to have a hope of it being relevant to you."

NOT shown- the phrase "the right of the people" is STILL there.

"- I've given you an example of an Amendment which isn't relevant today in its original form."
- I've given you an example of an Amendment that's been modified as lawmakers discovered that it had ceased to be relevant."

The VALUE has been changed, due to inflation, but the PRINCIPAL has not.


- I've made the logical step that if one Amendment can be found to be inapplicable today and modified, then this one could be too."

Which is my problem- WHY should YOU have freedom of speech if there are those who might consider it to be a danger???????

You would alter the laws YOU do not like, but hold as absolutes the ones that YOU do like- REGARDLESS of others opinions.