Should the second amendment be rewritten

I would like to address your concerns with my argument before responding: 1) I do not intend to question the integrity of the amendment process itself, as I fully understand that the founding fathers had the foresight to justify the need for change. However, I do call into question the integrity of our modern legislators. While the founding fathers laid the foundation for politics, they were not in themselves politicians; they were average, well-informed, and well-spoken citizens who were acting on a sense of duty, rather than benefits. This is a stark contrast to the modern system of career politicians, and I fully intend to question that modern system. As a direct result, I argue that any changes to the document risk the possibility of proposing changes to any other portion of the Bill of Rights, in which case politicians could hypothetically unravel the entire document itself. 2) America is the supporter of a flawed economic system that the government is incapable of correcting without severe intervention, but there is no merit to the argument that America is not a free nation on a political basis. The "enslavement" of the American people as you describe it in Round 2 is not a politically based model, but one of culture and economic struggle, which can be argued as not impossible to overcome, and I would be happy to debate with you some other time, but not consistent with your original statement of Round 1, which causes me to suggest that you have lost traction with your suggestion that the government intends to "enslave" the American population. Being that the current debate is regarding a political issue, rather than an explicitly cultural issue, I would suggest that the cultural and economic "enslavement" is not as pertinent to this debate as you intended it to be. 3) "no activity can truly be both a Right and a privilege simultaneously. Anything that is regulated by another person or entity other than the actor is a privilege, not a Right. Any Right, on the other hand, carried out irresponsibly is a crime." Firearms are regulated by the federal government, making them a privilege. Yet at the same time, the right to firearms is legally considered a Right. In order for this Right to be punishable as a crime, it must be regulated by some sort of governing body. Therefore, by your own definition: The right to bear arms is a right, and irresponsible use is criminal, but the only way to consider irresponsible use as criminal is to regulate the right to bear arms as a privilege. In order for your own definition to apply, the right to bear arms must be ruled as both a Right and a privilege. 4) As I stated in Round 1, I was quoting the amendment as ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson. This particular phrasing omits the aforementioned commas. I chose this phrasing of the Second Amendment precisely because this was the originally drafted phrasing of the document, which each state approved before moving the document forward in the legislative process. This phrasing is more difficult to separate into parts, which protects it from being misread, as often is the case, unfortunately. The version that was passed by Congress and stored in the National Archives includes said commas at the respective locations that you have specified. Proof of the distinct versions can easily be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Regarding your position on the existence of a militia, I can understand the trepidation at the conceptual labeling of a militia, however I do not believe that the word association of militia is grounds to do away with the concept. For all intents and purposes, one could label any group/gang as a militia if they felt encouraged to, however this is merely the label. The only real standing militias in the United States today are the National Guard and Army Reserve. All other militias are the result of poorly defined organizations that only resemble the term in name. America has not seen any serious need for a legitimate citizen militia in over a century. My intention is not that the federal government should back or label a citizen group as the American militia. I do agree that such a labeled group would only be targeted if/when warfare arrises. However, the government has a responsibility to position it's people in a way that they may become a militia when needed, and the people have a responsibility to learn necessary combat and firearm skills, so that they may survive the rigors of combat. The need for a militia is inarguable; the label of the group is irrelevant, therefore it makes little sense to do away with the phrasing, as such a change would only lead to the argument that firearms are only strictly required for personal use.