I think India holds the record for most-changed constitution. As a republic, the nation has existed for ohh...60 years. Yet their constitution has been amended 55 (IIRC) times. That's almost an amendment every year.
Anyways, I don't think the constitution should be amended...however (if it's possible), we should have a council of historians of varying political views (or hell! Let's get international observers) to review the grammar of the 2nd Amendment to see what it means.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states:
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.
The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
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.
Well, that's a nightmare. In today's terms, it makes little, if any, sense. However, the difference between the two versions (a comma) makes little impact (IMO).
*click* OHHHHHH! I get it! I get it! It makes more sense in the second version, and that's if you compare it to a sentence like this:
The city having been captured, Johnson fled.
So, the 2nd Amendment is saying that (IMO)
because a military is essential to the security of our nation, a Citizen's right to have and hold a weapon should not be infringed upon.
However, the Fathers probably (hopefully) knew that weapon control laws would have to be in place (i.e no drawing weapons on people without provocation, etc).