Mrs. Macross opened this can of worms:
Is this right of the people to keep and bear arms still important enough to be a constitutional right?
This right was created in a day when people could rise up against a tyrannical government. Given the current state of military technology, how feasible is that? Wouldn't the military decide who wins by giving their support? Or would the government (and therefore military) back down as some point because people can at least sustain chaos as long as they have their guns?
And do we really want the majority to have the option to violently overthrow the government? What if the Christians decide they want a Christian government? They are certainly the majority in this country. Or do we factor in that it's one thing to believe in something, but it's another thing to take a bullet in the chest. Would the fear of death limit uprisings to only those which are the kind envisioned by the founding fathers?
What about the right to protect your home? I suspect that this is more important than ever - although is the threat so great because the other guy is likely to have a gun?
Forget the "only the bad guys will have guns" stuff. By that logic, Europe would have descended into anarchy a long time ago.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment - but why do we hang onto this belief when things have changed so much from its inception? Is the 2nd Amendment meaningful at all given the amount of gun laws? The recent Washington, DC case suggests that it is still relevant. But is it as relevant?