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 you're saying that repealing any single amendment is tantamount to repealing the entire constitution of the US? Prohibition proves this incorrect.

I wouldn't object to ANY amendment being altered or repealed if a fair majority of the electorate believe that it's valid. Prohibition (an amendment) was voted in by a majority, and was voted out again by a majority (via another amendment). Personally I believe that *most* of the original amendments will be valid for all time, but some are artifacts of their era. As some comedian said about Jewish law: "Don't kill. Don't steal. Respect your parents. Don't eat pork....say what?!?!"

Which I, for one DO NOT agree with.

That's fine - I don't ask anyone to agree with me. But I'll give my reasons why I think what I do, and if they disagree, I'd ask them to be able to explain why, in ways that they can defend (even if the logic is as simple as "dude, I just like shooting shit up"). This would indicate that we're having a reasoned discussion. So, in return for me giving you my reasoning, I'd like you to give me yours. Quoting text of the US constitution doesn't count as reasoning, that's just lawyering. Reasoning means starting from first principles ("why do I want to own a gun?") and working forward.

Now a valid argument is "I think I'm safer with a gun". I can point you at places that say you're not, but I'm sure you could find places that say you are. On that we can agree to disagree, because there's evidence for both sides. We may still have problems though with the question of whether everyone else is safer when you have a gun, which is a separate problem related to what I was saying about training, insurance, control of ownership, etc. There are very few cases in which everyone else would be safer, and an awful lot of cases in which they'd be in more danger.

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

Fine, but you've not shown why this phrase has any relevance today.

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

That's a fair point. How about Prohibition though, and the repeal of two amendments concerning that?

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.

No I wouldn't. As I said, if the majority of the citizens of the US chose to repeal the right to free speech, then that's their choice. It's not a society I'd want to live in, but they absolutely have the right to self-determination. If they screw it up (like they did with Prohibition) then that's their prerogative.

Graham.