(still here)

Ok, Kent, I see your tightly defined little point. You are asserting that EVEN IF we have no body that functions like a militia anymore, the 'people's right', etc., still obtains. well...hmmm... I think I would claim that the 'right' is directly connected to 'militiahood', if I may coin a word, and that logically, 'no need for militia, no need for the 'right' for everyone to 'bear arms'. No doubt a good attorney for either side could argue either way in the Court. Constitutional experts disagree on the interpretation...your assertion here is not exactly "revealed truth". It is an opinion, as mine is....that is why it needs to be clarified instead of just 'clutched'. It is fascinating to watch that circular reasoning..."I BELIEVE the 2nd amendment still applies, but I don't want any discussion about whether my belief is relevant and supported by many others...so I will just assert that is IS, and and dare you to get it discussed beyond silly threads on Internet forums".

In any case, whether YOU are for or against guns, it is still the case that many guns are being defended by reference to an antiquated, irrelevant clause. MY point is still that the **situation is untenable, and many of those who cling to such an outmoded clause are grasping at ANY straw to avoid losing their toys, and avoiding facing the real issues..

"I assert that *I* can be trusted with guns, and no matter what is happening, *I* want mine, 'just in case'."

phooey