The current version says:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.I propose scrapping that out-of-date text in favor of:
No state, or the United States, shall deprive the right of citizens to keep and bear arms designed for hunting, or for self-defense of one's person or domicile, without due process of law.This balances the right of people to defend themselves with the right of others to maintain personal safety. It also explicitly limits that right to one's person or home, meaning that you can't pull a George Zimmerman, and you can't shoot someone just because they're trying to take your car, but you CAN if you're in the car and you have legitimate reason to fear for your life. It also gives a clearer picture as to what kinds of weapons are allowed: shotguns and hunting rifles are probably fine, but assault rifles are not. Handguns can also be restricted, because although they can be used for self-defense, a long gun would get the job done just as well.
The word that I debated the use of the most of was "designed." Should it be "used," i.e., "used for hunting," etc., instead? Or what about "intended"?