Should the second amendment be rewritten

Before I begin my argument, I would like to quote the Second Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. "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 second amendment, as it has been preserved for over 200 years, need not be rewritten. My first point is that of continuity, and the necessity to uphold the integrity of the Bill of Rights in its entirety. With the gun debate, many have proposed the radical suggestion that the federal government repeal or rewrite the second amendment, citing that this particular amendment must itself be amended to fit the modern times. It has been argued that the second amendment is "not needed," in this day and age, to which I would reply that any changes to any one of the original ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, would constitute fault within each of these ten amendments and render the Bill of Rights faulty as a whole. To argue that the Second Amendment is not necessary in this day and age leaves open the possibility to suggest that the First Amendment will someday be deemed unnecessary and so on and so forth. While I can respect Pro's desire to clarify the Second Amendment, I strongly suggest that altering the document will only result in further alteration to the Bill of Rights as a whole. Regarding the existence of firearms in the United States, I would like to agree with Pro's stance that firearms can serve as a deterrent against foreign invaders. Further, I would like to refer to the Swiss model of gun control, where automatic firearms are fully supported and encouraged, and viewed as necessary to national security. The reason that Switzerland has maintained peace through a century of world conflict is not because they are neutral, as many would argue, but because they are armed. In addition, they are experienced with their arms. This type of model is the most successful deterrent to foreign invasion. Regarding the public ownership of firearms, the federal government simply does not have the manpower or legal ability to institute a nationwide ban or collection of all firearms, and such measures would take years to implement. In addition, such a bold measure would instantly be met with hostility by the public, and lead to revolt. This is something that the federal government has undoubtedly considered, and fortunately recoiled from. However, I do not share Pro's stance regarding the federal government's willingness to "enslave" the American population. If the federal government had any real intentions of entering a totalitarian state, martial law could easily be declared, which would immediately result in mass revolution, leading to chaos, which the federal officials would simply wait out in bunkers, and then fire weapons of mass destruction on any lasting resistance. In the event of a tyrannical rise, God forbid, the public ownership of firearms, even automatic firearms, would only provide a hindrance, not a victory, against so well armed an opponent. Especially when one considers the lack of firearm experience shared by the wealth of the population, as compared to the devastating power of advanced military weapons. That being said, the most reasonable logic behind the usage of firearms in America is as a means for personal protection, not against federal tyranny per say, but against the very real possibilities of everyday "bad guys. " The likelihood of using a firearm in self defense is rather low, but still higher than the likelihood of revolution. Yet even more likely is the chances of firearm misuse, which is what brings me to my chief argument in this debate: The phrase that I find to be avoided far too often when discussing the Second Amendment is the phrase which Pro so conveniently avoided including in their proposed revision. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is arguably the most important condition of this amendment, and CAN NOT be overlooked. During every major conflict where militia has been utilized, the militia personnel have been required to submit to a set of standards that ensure firearm competency and ability. This involves proper tactical, and marksmanship training. Simply put, they placed regulations on the militia to ensure that even the unofficial soldiers were disciplined enough to do battle. Therefore, out of necessity to the security of a free state, firearms are not merely a right, they are also a privileged responsibility and a call to action for the People. While the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it must be protected by way of holding firearms owners, AKA potential militia, to a high standard of responsible gun ownership and usage. This not only will ensure that firearms owners are prepared for the requirements of combat, but also may lessen the number of irresponsible firearms users within the nation. I look forward to Pro's response in Round 2.