Should the second amendment be rewritten

In my final posting, I will address any standing points between us and then conclude my argument. Being that we have corresponded in a paragraph by paragraph format, I see no reason to alter this format. 1. I do not intend to distrust the informed population, but would wholeheartedly agree that there is an unfortunate demographic of the under-informed electorate. That being said, the government is proven to utilize mass media and hysteria to manipulate the uninformed voting population; which causes me to propose the need for accountability, stemming from voters and applying to the election and term processes. We must hold each other, and our leaders accountable for their policies and actions. 2. The argument that the current system of enslavement is politically based is poorly conceived. While the government doles out these "freebies," it is far easier to label this activity as a form of manipulation, or pandering, than to call this a form of enslavement. The real enslavement is based on the economic and cultural oppression that prevents individuals from raising themselves above the working class. The government has no reason to hinder the economic growth of the working class, because economic growth stimulates the federal economic growth through higher taxable incomes. 3. My justification of rights and privileges being linked resides in your own definitions, posted in Round 2. You had posted: "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." In response, I suggest that: although the right to bear firearms is a protected Right, in order to legally define misuse of this Right as a criminal activity, the government must provide regulation. This is supported logically by your own argument. I would like to point out that, while I am not arguing for or against the sale or legal regulation against gun manufacturing and sales policies, I do support the concept of background checks, purely as a qualifying measure in the firearms transfer process, and I do not support the concept of a firearm registration database in any form. I will concede that the Second Amendment has been historically misinterpreted by the federal government as applicable to the militia exclusively, however, I also will propose that the militia, for all intents and purposes, is the American People as a whole. I would argue that the Right is not dependent on the explicit existence of a militia, as this would suggest that the Right to keep and bear arms is reserved exclusively for militia members, instead of the general public. Rather, I would suggest that Right belongs to the public, as a provision that a militia may be formed when needed. 4. Although I am of the mind that the original documentation was more strongly worded; I can see your point, and begrudgingly concede mine. 5. I will fully agree that any openly labeled civilian militia could be targeted in the event of a government attack scenario, but I will not concede that this is grounds to do away with the militia reference. A militia, no matter how it is or isn't labeled, is still a militia. The concept of a civilian militia is intended specifically to be an unofficial, discreet, guerrilla warfare type of unit, composed of rag-tag citizens. The need for a label is irrelevant, and the blunt of it is that any reasonable militia that intended to defy the government would simply not choose to call themselves a militia. The point of a militia is precisely that it cannot be defined or labeled, making it harder to target and eliminate this militia. Regarding the current arming of government and regulation of people, I will freely admit that I think creating a national registry of firearms would only lead to further and further regulation measures, as has been the case in several other societies. 6. Your argument seems to suggest that the militia is a separate entity from the American population. I disagree with this perception, and instead propose that the militia is not officially controlled, but composed of the entire civilian American population. In the event that the militia sees the need for civilians to raise arms in combat, the militia may organize a rag-tag force to do battle, but the militia itself is the People as a whole. The two cannot be separated, and a realistic civilian militia cannot be defined, because it constantly exists and changes with the need for it. 7. The final and most important point that I would like to address is that "Being necessary to the security of a Free society" is just as ambiguous, if not more so, than leaving the current amendment intact. "Being necessary to the security of a Free society" can mean any number of things, and can be interpreted in whichever way politicians see fit. To gun lobbyists, this would be a free reign to propose introducing more and more firearms into an already saturated market with little to no consideration for the thousands of unenforced ATF laws currently on the books. To gun opposition, this law would only require that they readjust their definition of what "Free society" should need firearms for, just as the assault weapons ban discriminates against a majority of rifles not explicitly intended for hunting purposes. The "security of a Free society" is no more definitive than the "militia being necessary to the security of a free state." In conclusion: While we clearly have a common goal of providing the American People with the appropriate tools to protect themselves from their government, we appear to have different philosophies regarding the definition and application of the Second Amendment. While you have argued that the Second Amendment should be rewritten to omit the existence of a civilian militia, you clearly support the idea of a civilian militia to combat the government. The largest difference between our two stances is that I suggest the concept that civilian militias will exist and be militarized to do combat on an as needed basis, regardless of labeling. For all intents and purposes, the civilian militia is the civilian population, and this group is intended to be protected by the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, in defense of the security of a free state. Therefore, the proposal for amending the amendment is not needed. Please vote Con. I would like to thank Pro for the hard-fought, civil and thought-provoking debate. I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth and wish you luck in the future. I think that we have both raised some very interesting points and hopefully a few eyebrows as well. May the best argument win!