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?'?

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.

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

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. It should be amended to read "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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?

wouldn't matter

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

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...

The well regulated part needs to be left in.

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

No. It should not be altered.