What words could be included in the Second Amendment to make it what you believe it "should" be?
Are you saying that people "should" have such weapons but have no right to them? Why would they not have the right to something they "should" have? The lack of a "right" to own such weapons is what makes it possible for the government to ban such weapons.
Why would you grant the government the power to disarm people of these weapons? If you believe that people "should" be able to possess such weapons, what convinces you that our Founders didn't want what you want?
Excuse the redundancy, but I'm curious as to how you reconcile these issues.
Most people would be quite surprised the extent to which the courts have lied about the Second Amendment in order to achieve their ends. The recent Heller decision from the Supreme Court did not require overturning the infamous Miller decision because the Miller decision, in fact, was never what other courts claimed it was.
I would have put words to the effect of: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of all people to keep and bear all manner of weaponry, shall not be infringed nor shall any citizen be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their homes, or their Nation."
But I ain't no lawyer...
Are you saying that people "should" have such weapons but have no right to them? Why would they not have the right to something they "should" have? The lack of a "right" to own such weapons is what makes it possible for the government to ban such weapons.
You keep getting me confused with someone who wants to grant Congress the power to deprive the people of a God given right. Not so. Just because I do not believe something is codified in the Constitution, it does not follow that I believe it should not be there. As to what the FF's did or did not want, I defer to the Federalist Papers, to which I fully support and agree with.
v.r
rj