Do you think that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should read 'The right of the Miitia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?'?

nope...... it was written that way for a reason......


....but then again, that understanding would take a bit of education and the understanding of men like John Locke and how he influenced founders like Thomas Jefferson...

wouldn't matter

since militia as mentioned in the constitution, means every male citizen over 18 years old

It pretty much says that now.

No. It should not be altered.

No.
I like it JUST the way it IS.
I don't belong to a militia.
BTW,
My guns and I have never ever aimed at a human being.
Thanx for askin'!

No, because that gives whoever controls the militia the ability to control the people. The Framers of the Constitution remembered well how important it was for citizens to be armed. Paul Reverero rode to warm the people that the British were coming to seize the armory and thereby disarm them.

That's what it has always said.

At least until 2010 when 5 justices decided that it said something different.

Are we afraid that 5 justices JUST MIGHT NOT agree with that interpretation in the future, hmmmm?

No. It should be amended to read "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Don't really give a sh!t because the US constitution and 2nd amendment rights mean absolutely nothing in my country.

It would not matter to the outcome of gun ownership if it were changed to read that way.

The well regulated part needs to be left in.