It's a pointless amendment if it doesn't have teeth. The Founders agreed that it needed teeth. People today want to give it dentures.
There are too many who would leave the populace with nothing but their gums for a weapon, forget about dentures. I'm not for that at all, I'm suggesting more of a defanging (rest of the teeth can be left in) which the states can reinstate as they see fit. The weapons are different and the times are different and I think it is quite reasonable to have the 2nd amendment revisited to better define it for these times.
But please, please, no verbosity in the Constitution; Keep the verbosity in debate. Leave alone the elegant economy of words our forefathers laid down. Let us rebuild our society with the Law of our forefathers, not expand the number of legal tomes we need to control our fellow man.
Yeah. I wasn't too keen on the length and style of the list either. I'd never suggest what I wrote be inserted into the constitution as is. I'm all for simple and would hope any new amendment would be in keeping with the simplicity, exacting generality, and overall style of the document. However, the world of weaponry is much larger and more complex now than it was then and there are issues like concealed and open carry vs home defense and sporting uses; it may take more than a one liner.
I take it you don't think there is any need to amend on this issue? Lets see about this: A person has a right to buy and possess a mini-gun, RPG, or a grenade; do the feds or states have the right to control under what how and under what circumstance such a weapon is legally used, stored, and transported?