Alphecca

As a strictly amateur weaspons-historial I would add that one of the most aurgued about terms in the Amendment doesn't mean now what it meant on the late 18th/early 19th centuries. "Well regulated" in those days referred to accuracy, proficiency and familiarity with arms when used in a military context; not laws, rules or practical regulations as commonly used today.

It was used in the context of rate-of-fire, dispersal of aim, and even the techniques of firing in ranks effectively. A somewhat modern use of the term today in-context would be a "well-regulated timepiece"; not a Zoning ordinance regulating land-usage. The Founders wanted Americans to be familiar and proficient in the use of firearms; even without formal military training. There is ample examples in many of their other writings...including Jefferson....of ther belive in the necessity of an armed civilian populace; both for civil defense against tyrannyand outlawness and for national defense against aggression.

The proponents of a disarmed America falsely use the "...well regulated Militia"-clause outside of it's historical and etylomological roots. They wish to convert "Citizens" into "Subjects".

Okay here's my $.02 & 26 words.

"No law abiding citizen shall be denied the ownership, use or carrying of arms for individual or the common defense at any time, for any reason."

I'll drink to that, Dave!

"The militia, composed of every law abiding citizen, shall have the uninhibited right to possess and bear any and all arms and explosives at all times."

I might add to it: "These arms may be used against any legislator who would seek to mitigate this right."

Maybe the second could be worded similar to the first:

Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

No confusing talk about "militia," nothing about "security," just asserting the freedom of the people to arm themselves.

This reminds me of the time or two I have posted more generically on what you would change if you were rewriting the Constitution, or writing a new one, today. Good topic.

The thing that seems clear is that intent and clarity must be built in, and nothing can be taken for granted. I think you'd have to use the simplest language possible, and at the same time have a glossary in an effort to archive current definitions with the document so it would be harder to twist, intentionally or not.

Kudos to you. Law abiding citizens are scrutinized to the till while the non-law abiding do what they want...and what does the anti gun libs say...it's the guns.

The people shall have the right to defensd themselves, their liberties, their property, and their fellow citizens, and to keep and bear such arms as are necessary and sufficient to defend against any threat, including the threat of any domestic tyranny, foreign power, pirate, brigand, or other criminal, or any other person or group of persons who threatens them. No person may be deprived of such rights without due process of law.

Dave: the only comment I have against your statement is the phrase "law abiding". While I agree with the sentiment, it opens a hole that could be used to restrict ownership based on conviction for trivial offenses like jaywalking or parking violations.

I'm wondering, and this may be a wacky idea: rather than prohibit Congress from regulating arms, why not provide a Constitutional mandate for encouraging the possession and profiency in the use of arms? "Because a well-armed citizenry is key to defense against tyranny, aggression, and lawlessness, Congress shall encourage the manufacture, ownership, training, and possession of arms for personal and common defense." The wording isn't the greatest, but you get the picture. Is it the Swiss that issue a weapon to every adult male (probably females these days too) upon the completion of his (mandatory) service? Or did I just make that up?

A well practiced militia, comprising the whole of the citizenry, being necessary to the liberty of a free people, defense against both domestic tyranny and foreign invasion: The right of the people to arms, including the manufacture, sale, possession, transport, use and bearing of arms, shall not be licensed, restricted, or barred in any manner by any legislature, or agency of any governmental authority.

Notes: I see no reason to define arms, since this can be used to limit the type of arms in the future. Imagine the the current 2nd.A. specified flintlocks or Kentucky Rifles. If it gets so bad as to the need to define arms, the Ammendment is already being ignored and is either superflous to a cowed populace, or a revolution is about to occur.

Brian: I had the same concerns re: "law abiding", but left it in as I don't really have an alternative.

I don't really have an answer, but as an aside, it's sad that we've gotten to a point where we have to worry about the GFW's definition of "law abiding".

tomwright: Good point re: "defining arms".
"when phazers are outlawed..."

The government exists primarily for the defense of its citizens, but the people retain the primary right and responsibility of self-defense, so no law shall be made to limit or regulate ownership of guns and other weapons by individuals and groups.

I dunno, Matt, about explosives. I was only kidding about that. Then again, if they ban them, that could prevent reloading.

I agree about getting rid of "militia" since (as even Lawrence Tribe has come to realize) the 2nd Amendment is a personal right as are all the other amendments.

My attempt:

The people have an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms.

The people have an absolute individual right to kill anyone who infringes on the absolute individual right to keep and bear arms.

If the right to keep and bear arms applies only to spark ignited charcoal burners, then freedom of the press applies only to hand set type with the output to be distributed by nothing faster than a man on horseback.