Yeah, b, the subject line is supposed to be humorous...

First and foremost, just to set a record straight, I am not a gun advocate. Being Infantry-minded and sniper trained, I just have no problem with guns, or the people who own them. My ire is raised only when the gun-totin’ ego-trips hit the newswires and some innocent bystander hits the dust. I type on these pages merely as an advocate for freedom and the integrity of the U.S. Constitution.

Here, Amendments are permitted, ratified and voided by Congressional vote. Prohibition was a colossal mistake, one which was rather quickly corrected with Repeal.

The 2nd Amendment has been around for quite a while, as evidenced by its being only the second of 27. It's rooted in rather well.

A full repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be a difficult task, and in point of fact, is, for there are several Americans who have tried just that. A sub-Amendment, or breaking the existing Amendment into Sections I think would be a better approach, a breakdown which would allow the free and open possession of firearms, plain and simple. Let's face it, people do like their guns, and those who have them will hang onto them, no matter what (that "cold, dead hand" quote comes readily to mind ... and that’s pretty hard to fight).

A rewrite is now needed. With the world's largest corporation being the United States Military, the old State Militia is no longer needed.

...However -- is a civil militia still needed...?

Securing the Homeland is a big job, considering the Coast to Coast size of the beast, and when coupled with the idea of an actual invasion. We don't think in this light, though, because we live in a country where invasions do not happen -- at least not in the good neighborhoods.

Street and neighborhood watch groups, some of which actually have volunteers patrolling streets at night, on foot or in cars, stem much of this nefarious activity, but what about an encroaching military, a robust force from outside the nation, or even a hostile sleeper group within our borders?

Sketchy, I know, but still a viable threat.

Sketchier still, should the politics of D.C. fall to the wayside and some nefarious person sets up a regime state, one in full control of the U.S. Militaries, who ya gonna call?

I put that the Second Amendment should be left alone and we concentrate more on the idea of weapons training and weapons safety as our overall priorities in this matter. The selling and trading of firearms need better controls, and I really see nothing wrong with background investigations. We go through this today, simply applying for a job, but for a weapon, I would have to include a check for mental disorder and/or imbalance.

Perhaps:
AMENDMENT [II.]
SECTION 1. 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.
SECTION 2. Local constabulary shall have the power to revoke this article on a case-by-case basis, should a requestor for a firearms permit be diagnosed by a practicing medical expert to have a condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and/or emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the persona.

Note there is no plurality in Section 2, as this would have to be a case-by-case declaration.

...“Local constabulary” is a bit open-ended, but the choice for the deciding facility might not be an elected official, such as a Sheriff, or even an appointed Marshall, bringing us down to the mayoral police department.
...A “practicing medical expert” would have to be an actual doctor with standard hours of business, not an ad hoc representative brought in simply to deny another’s rights.
...“Seriously impair” might be better revised...

I’m sure there are other problems. I don’t know if this would work, but at least it’s a start.