Writing A new Constitution

OF THE MANY PROBLEMS created by our poorly written, outdated constitution, the most blatant and obvious is the vague, ambiguous second amendment. Does it guarantee the right for an individual to own a weapon only when serving in a militia, or the right to own and carry a gun for personal protection? What kind of guns are covered? Muzzle loaders only, as would be the case in a strictly "originalist" interpretation, or machine guns as well? If you think the answers to these basic questions are obvious and need no discussion, reconsider. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor anyone else has ever been able to make a convincing argument in response to any of these reasonable, obvious questions. In fact, for most of American history, the high court has indeed ruled that only when serving in a regulated militia does the document guarantee the right to bear arms. Throughout its history, American society has been engaged in a continuous dispute over exactly what the second amendment means. In 1977, the National rifle Association, which had therefore been primarily concerned with gun safety and hunting regulation, joined the gun fight, when its leadership was taken over by a group of right wing right wingers, in whose hands the organization remains to this day. previously, ironically, the NRA had for the most part been a staunch advocate of strict, or at least reasonable gun control, the thinking being that such regulation would serve ultimately to protect the second amendment rights of responsible gun owning citizens. In the United States, there has always been gun ownership, and there has always been gun control, to one degree or other. Regulations were rather strict in the early republic, far stricter than now. In the supposedly wild west, guns were very strictly regulated, and for the most part were not allowed to be carried in frontier towns. obviously, America needs some final resolution to the second amendment mess, some clearly written set of laws which reflect modern reality. Since forty three states have constitutional provisions allowing for gun ownership, there is no chance that the federal government will come and take away anyone's weapons. there are numerous other examples of the inadequacy of the two hundred and twenty five year old constitution, too many to mention here. prohibition is enacted, then, a few lines further down, repealed. For purpose of congressional representation, a certain class of people, slaves, are counted as three fifths of a human being. No, I'm not making that up. Surely, a more modern, concise term could be found to replace the archaic term "emoluments". Why not specifically enumerate a right to privacy, and define "privacy" in modern terms, instead of arguing about whether one can be found between the lines in our current document? Why not clearly outlaw discrimination base on gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation? We the people need and deserve a new, improved constitution, as Thomas Jefferson said we inevitably would. And,for teh sake of respect for tradition, the current one would be a very good model upon which to base our better version.