~Ramseys

I know this may be a bit off-topic, but it's something that is sort of related. As a non-US citizen, can someone explain just why the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is regarded and treated differently than other Amendments ? From an outsider's viewpoint it almost seems that many in the United States regard the 2nd almost the same as if it was one of the Ten Commandments, written on tablets of stone by the hand of God Himself.. Other Amendments to the Constitution have over the years been amended or changed...what is sacred about the 2nd ?
And no..I don't want this to degenerate into a pro/anti gun debate. It is simply a question about constitutional amendments and how they work.

Ooops sorry. I didn't reply to your post directly.
See bellow.

If one goes back and looks at what the framers had in mind is that the most important thing is freedom of speech, and that extended to freedom to how to think and believe.
The second was to protect that important freedom and all the other rights in the bill.
Remember at the time most of the folks coming to this country, was leaving a government that only allowed one religion.
Also at the time, it was felt that no matter how well meaning a government might be, it can stray from the will of the governed. And to that end, there had to be a means for the people to reacquire the controls of the government.
I, being a libertarian, feel ALL of the bill of rights are important.

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.

A lot of people interpret the first part, A well regulated Militia, to mean the 'National Guard'.
But again remember at the time we just fought a war with a 'citizen army'. We were not the professionals the British were. The founders knew that any future wars would once again draw heavily on the citizen soldier. And if he had a personal weapon, all the better.

In a way, the Swiss also have this mind set.

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia can be kept at home as part of the military service. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

I hope I have answered some of your questions. I'm by no means a constitutional scholar.
But compared to many in this country, I may as well be.

It seems the stories where a gun is used to defend people and stop a potential or actual killer all too often get lost in the cracks. There are a few good stories that turn up, like a few years ago when a woman was on the phone with 911 for 10 minutes as a couple guys tried breaking into her house, and she had a shotgun. The operator told her to do anything she needed to do to protect herself and her baby, so when the first guy actually came through the door she blew him a new hole (the police were 20 minutes away).

BTW, there was a mass stabbing in Japan the other day that killed about 15 people. Ban the assault knives!

I work with a guy who's a very big gun enthusiast, and he's always arguing with people online who have the most ridiculous arguments for banning guns and criminalizing gun ownership, and he shuts them down every time with actual crime statistics from sources like the FBI. Well, not shut them down, because the people he argues with are too stubborn to concede they're completely wrong about the issue. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that criminals will ignore anti-gun laws and find it much easier to commit crimes on all the honest people who follow such laws.

In regards to what you wrote up above about the 2nd amendment, I've found over the years that people often treat it as open for interpretation because they're thrown off by the punctuation and don't quite get the meaning. As written it states:
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 way I interpret it with the punctuation is like this:
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.
Or the sentence diagrammed another way: [premise A][additional descriptor for premise A]—[premise B stated for equivalence to premise A]—[subsequent rule].
So for clearer meaning it can be rewritten like this:
A well regulated Militia—that is, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms—which is necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

That's how I take to mean, anyway. But not being a gun enthusiast myself, I'm more likely to argue in defense of the first amendment preserving free speech and expression and separation of church and state. But as a rational person I will also argue in defense of the second amendment, even if it's a right I choose not to exercise.