That is actually a great question. I think there should be another discussion about that very question. Should we move on from the constitution? I think the basic tennents of the constitution are still relevent today, but there are others that have outlived their purpose. The 2nd ammendment is one I fell has. If I had a pen and the power; which I know I don't, and you dont have to remind me of that, I would re-write the 2nd amendment to state that everyone has the right to self defense. Then we could debate by what means, instead of being stuck with the outdated and confusing wording that exists now. Where the confusion comes in is in the framing of the 2nd amendment stating that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". If the writers intended firearms to be used in ones own personal protection from crime, why was that not written more clearly? So I think if we as a country believe in the right to bear arms for self defense purposes, we need to re-write it to say that. It is not how I would choose to write it. As I have said.. I would simply write it stating ones right to self defense while leaving out the method of self defense. That way we could have a discussion as to what type of weapons we are allowed to use for self defense purposes.
Well, in some countries an expiremental process has to occur in order to determine what works and what does not work. That is the reason why I stated that its dangerous to change society overnight. Slow gradual change is necissary in order to keep us from putting all our eggs in one basket and getting them all crushed. We have to throw ideas out there, good or bad, and expiriment with them. If they don't work, we get rid of them before they do more damage.