Should the second amendment be rewritten

Thank you, sir, and good luck to you as well. First, allow me to address a couple of specific points in your argument. 1) "[t]hat any changes to any one of the original ten amendments " would render the Bill of Rights faulty as a whole." I would suggest such a conclusion calls into question the Spirit and wisdom of the amendment process itself. The founders knew that changes would someday be needed, and two methods were put in place: the normal ratification process, and the Article V provision for a convention of the States. 2) "[...] I do not share Pro"s stance regarding the federal government"s willingness to "enslave" the American population." To that I submit that "enslavement" does not necessarily involve chains and shackles, but requires only an unbreakable dependency and an inability or unwillingness to think for one"s self. Look at the situation in most major metropolitan centers, into the inner city ghettos and projects. Look at the generational dependency started and proliferated by the federal government. These are not "free" but "enslaved" people. 3) "[...] firearms are not merely a Right, they are also a privileged responsibility." I would first submit that ALL rights carry with them specific responsibilities; however, and more importantly, 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. The next order of business is one of punctuation and, perhaps, is the source of a large part of the confusion with the original text of the second amendment. In your own quotation of that amendment, you omitted two commas; one between the words "militia" and "being", the other between the words "arms" and "shall." Without delving too deeply into the basic rules of grammar (evidence suggests you"re not lacking in that department), the original text of the amendment contains two separate parenthetical phrases: "being necessary to the security of a free state," and, "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms." This is important because the first phrase illustrates the importance of a "well regulated militia," while the second acknowledges the specific right(s) that "shall not be infringed." (Side bar: At the time of ratification, the U.S., having a general distrust of standing armies, did not maintain what anyone could legitimately call a "well regulated or trained" army; instead, we relied heavily on the existence of local and state militias " which could, if needed, be called into national service. Those militias were comprised of every able-bodied man above the age of 18, and were, for the most part, equipped with whatever arms they privately owned. These militias, like those that originally supplemented the Continental Army, were comprised of rag-tag groups of farmers, store keepers and even clergymen, whose primary advantage was their lack of visible connection to the uniformed armies. The days of that type of militia are so far behind us now, that the majority of Americans now hold a greater distrust of anyone openly affiliated with any group labeled as a "militia" than they do the standing army " the term "militia" now conjures negative images of Ruby Ridge, or the Republic of Texas; however, if needed, new militia groups would be formed today just as their predecessors were: by assembling rag-tag groups of common people, armed with their private weapons.) My apologies for the long side-bar; however, it speaks to my intentional " not convenient " exclusion of the term "A well regulated militia" from my proposed rewrite. In today"s climate, any registered affiliation with organized militia groups would, most likely, simply identify the first target for elimination by a rogue army/government. The call-to-arms by all patriots would, even without mention of a militia in the Constitution " just as what occurred in 1775, result in the same rag-tag groups of insurgents (a.k.a.: "Militia") that repelled the British. It is, therefore, and should be, the main goal of the second amendment to acknowledge the Individual Right to keep and bear arms, and to impose emphatic prohibitions against infringement thereof. The desired goal of a rewrite would be to remove the ambiguity caused by the militia reference. Too many today believe the founders intended firearms to be freely owned (without government approval) only by those affiliated with or a part of a militia " that"s just not the case. The two distinct parenthetical phrases indicate that they believed a well regulated militia is the ultimate safeguard of a free society, and that the Right of the Individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; two separate and distinct statements.