Hmmm.

You're correct, the times are different. First, regarding external threats to the country. An armed citizenry is not necessary or helpful. If it ever came to that, there are a lot of old weapons which would be distributed, and the Bill of Rights would be irrelevant. Those would be desperate times.

Regarding internal threats, the government "getting" you. If it's going to "get you", it's going to "get you", and you could have everything up to and including a large tank in your garage, and it ain't gonna help.

So, there's no need, anymore, for the self-armed citizen militia which was useful in Revolutionary times.

Well-regulated - "Could that be interpreted to be an attempt to keep these arms in the hands of trained, focussed people in the service of their country?"

* No, they would have worded it as such. The people that wrote that document weren't stupid."

But that's exactly what they did say.

"Out of curiosity, how would you amend the second amendment? What exact wording would you use?"

That's interesting. What would be the goal of any amendment these days?

In those times, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have said what they did, only in language which would be, hopefully, a bit less convoluted. Something like "The right of the citizenry to own, keep and bear arms in the service of their country shall not be infringed."

Now, I have guns. I've shot many, many guns of many, many types. I'm not anti-gun, and I don't care if you have one, two, three or a hundred.

If there were a way to keep weapons out of the hands of people with impaired judgement, such as those who are nuts, have demonstrated poor impulse control, and/or under the influence of any alcohol or druges, I wouldn't mind opening it up.

I'm absolutely against fully automatic weapons, which are clearly offensive, not defensive. I would limit weapons this way. "No person shall own any weapon which would not require reloading to kill an entire kindergarten class including the teacher and teacher's aide."

Otherwise I might say something which meant "The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms suitable for defending their homes from unwanted intruders shall not be infringed." I would leave it up to the experts to figure out how to exclude fully automatic weapons, grenades, and so on.

My problem is threefold, I guess. One, offensive weapons, two, people with poor impulse control, and three, that some folks think there is a Constitutional right for the first two to get together.

Arf