What change would you make to the second amendment?

Answer 1

That's actually a good question, and what the current gun rights vs. gun control debate is about. Until fairly recently (the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008), the second amendment was interpreted in a way that gave rights of gun ownership mainly to a "well-regulated militia" (the military) and placed limits on individual gun ownership. But thanks in large part to activism and advocacy from the National Rifle Association (NRA), as well as a rise in anti-government sentiments, congress and the courts came to accept the idea that individuals have a nearly unlimited right to own guns, whether they are members of the military or not. Further, attempts to limit the number of guns or ban so-called "assault rifles" have also failed.

Changing the Second Amendment is probably not a winning issue, since the Founding Fathers clearly wanted Americans to be able to have "well-regulated militias" to fight potential tyrants (they were concerned that the British monarch might try to re-capture the colonies). It's a matter of clarifying their intent, and addressing how & why the interpretation of the second amendment has changed so dramatically. Today, anti-government attitudes are flourishing, along with an increasing fear of crime (even though in reality the over all crime rate has been dropping for more than a decade). As a result, many people believe that it is a dangerous world and only guns can protect them. And with most members of congress unwilling to take on the power of the NRA, the trend is to create more laws that give more individual citizens more rights to own more more guns. Whether this is acceptable, or whether this trend will continue remains to be seen. I fully expect my answer to be disagreed with, but this is the best response I can offer.

Answer 2

remove the well regulated militia clause