Reply #4: my POV

[Kenneth ken]

I see the entire Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) as being a counter-balance to the main body of the Constitution. The main body describes how the government is to be structured, and what powers it is to have. The BoR is set counter to that, limiting what the government can NOT do.

The government can not establish a nation religion; impose censorship;
The government can not require a home owner to play host to troops;
The government can not search you or your property without a warrant ("unreasonable search" is the debatable point here);
etc.

so in that same overall sense of rights of the people as individuals, the right to keep and bear arms applies - a well-regulated milita notwithstanding.

I would say that the wording is sloppy to some degree, as it obviously doesn't foresee the potential of sociopaths/psychopaths acquiring arms.

The Constitution is a human-created document, and therefore flawed. But it was overall a pretty well thought-out document.

It would be good if we could get a contitutional convention reconvened to update and revise it. Not throw it out and start fresh, but use it as a starting point, and have open debate on how to revise it, with the best minds of our generation at the table, and a REAL free press to provide a forum for the debate.