OK - So let's say we repeal the second amendment.

[Scootaloo]

64. No you don't

Truly, honestly, you don't rely in your second amendment rights any more than you rely on your third amendment rights - in all honesty you're more likely to need the third amendment than the 2nd, and that's saying a bit.

The reason is, we do not use the citizen militia system for for defense anymore. The bell in your town will not ring, and you will not be expected to pick up your gun and rush to a rendezvous point to defend the town against Indians, the British, space aliens, whatever. It won't happen.

That is the crux of the 2nd amendment. It's there for purposes of national defense, an addendum to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We have national and domestic defense covered by the military branches and by the police (Well... ideally by the police, these days, they seem more of something that needs to be defended AGAINST...)

The entire premise behind the 2nd amendment is defunct. It's the product of the early United States' paranoia and distrust of standing armies (and not, as some would have you believe, distrust of the government.) In fact, if you flipped back to Article 1, section 8, you'll see there is zero provision for a standing army; a Navy, but no army. it relies on calling the militia to defend on land. This is just not the case anymore; you should know, judging by your avatar.

Now an argument could be made that the army - all the branches of the military in fact, and police forces - are in fact the militia. However, if we make this argument, we have to realize that the arms you carry are provided to you by the service you are part of. You are not required to pick up your own weapons and bring them with you after you enlist. That feature of the amendment is defunct as well.

What you are doing when you play with your gun is exercising a common-law right to property. Same thing you do when you cook a meat loaf or hang a bird feeder. It's your right, but it's not the 2nd amendment.