While it is possible to argue that a well regulated militia is no longer needed to safeguard the safety and independence of the US and its citizens, the implications of that wouldn't be that just the part about the well regulated militia would be rendered obsolete.

The actual implication, as far as I can tell, would be that the 2nd amendment no longer secured the rights of citizens to have guns,  meaning that gun laws would be removed from constitutional protection and be completely subject to either state or federal laws.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right to keep and bear arms is seen as intrinsic to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. The former depends upon the latter, the latter upon the former. That specific and intentional intertwining is PRECISELY WHY interpretation of the amendment needs to be changed, as interpretation of the First Amendment has changed to accommodate a changing world and nation.

Other than in the wording of the amendment itself, you mean?

+++

Well, when the men who were responsible for the Second Amendment seem to disagree with your interpretation, then maybe your interpretation is the issue, not the wording.

••

I find no disagreement. Rendering in modern English, the Second Amendment would read:

"Since a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's neatly circular, one dependent upon the other. And, since that "well-regulated militia" long ago ceased to be "necessary", the keeping (and bearing) of arms is equally unnecessary.

It should be noted, of course, that the Second Amendment has already been undermined, without a whole lot of protest, since the actual BEARING of arms requires, in most places, a special permit. The "right" to keep and bear arms is not seen as an unbreakable unit.

They do Michael?  Just how so?  Please explain your interpretation.

++++

I have posted quotes from Founders in a previous gun thread. One I believe you participated in. And since "who the fuck cares what the Founding Father's intent was with the Second Amendment???", I doubt doing so again will matter to you. I will anyway, but I will have to do it later when I have more time. I do find it interesting that JB has fallen back on adding or re-arranging the words in the Second Amendment to bolster his argument, instead of responding to my request for evidence to show this was indeed the Founders intent. As I've said before, they weren't exactly silent on the matter. 

What I don't understand is that even if the Founding Fathers fully intended for every American to own a handgun, what elevated these people to the status of prescient Gods such that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or erased given it is no longer necessary.

+++

Well, I certainly never stated they were gods or infallible. But these very intelligent men did include a mechanism for changing any aspect of the Constitution. It's just not as easy as some people would like.

JB is right.  People no longer need to keep and bear arms because we no longer need them to form militias.  The National Guard does a good job of providing each state with a well regulated militia.  If you want to be part of your state's militia, enlist in the National Guard.

This makes sense.  Perfect sense.

The "I can have guns, but you can't have guns because... " (insert your own personal biased rationale here) thing doesn't.

 instead of responding to my request for evidence to show this was indeed the Founders intent.

This was clearly their intent.