as long as the right to own slaves is in the constitution. Slave owners will not have that right.

Should be a good balance

The view and use of firearms has changed dramatically over time and probably will continue to do so. The framers of the Constitution added the second amendment with very clear purpose relevant to the exact circumstances and concerns of the time.

Those underlying concerns are no longer relevant in today's world which leaves this historical remnant completely out of sync with a modern society's attempts at law enforcement and improving health and safety. Crime rates are lower in developped nations with strict gun laws. Police officers almost never shoot anyone, including criminals, largely because they are less likely to be shot themselves. Accidental deaths by firearms in Europe and Canada are a tiny fraction of the number they are in the US.

Having this amendment in a nation taught to revere the sanctity of their constitution forces Americans to either twist modern logic to suit a two hundred year old document or attack the document itself. It's a lose lose situation and an error that has cost countless lives.

On another note, the freedom OF religion bit should also have specifically included freedom FROM the religion of others.

Personally, I'd make the first and second vastly more unambiguous and absolute, but I like both guns and free speech.

plus the vital role of the State militias vs standing armies, I think it would depend on how you treated those subjects.

If you include A1/S8/15 & 16, and maintain the reduced role of the federal military, then you need to secure the militias right to arms. I cant imagine there would be any less trust that a new govt would not to render the militias useless....tyrants suck.

Count on the federal armies & law enforcement to protect our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution - and your need of militias diminishes.

Redefine the militias, and their roles, or secure their ability to be effective...they have VERY important roles to play..

Just be a bit clearer in your dictating so there is no debate over purpose and security.

moral busybodies that it is an individual right just like the rest of the BoR, IOW I would leave out the prefatory clause.

First, the hypothetical North American colony has evolved politically and technically in a different path from the one our current US has taken. At the time of the founding a great amount of English legal knowledge and experience was present and drawn upon by the founders. This country, whatever its government or lack thereof, will have some type of law with which its people are familiar. There can't be too great of a diversion from that in order maintain a degree of logical continuity. Not knowing that law would pass on only the essence of the Bill of Rights and maintain that the 2A specifically provides protection for the private and individual right to keep and bear arms but clarifying that militia service is not a prerequisite or concurrent condition for that right. I would further strongly urge those folks to make militia participation and distributed state based military a priority in order to help prevent future tyrants from using it as a tool to enforce the compliance of the people to his demands.

I feel that our current Constitution is a bit weak in formulating requirements for state militia participation.