In view of all the differences of opinion there are concerning the meaning of Amendemt II, imagine all the controversy that would be spawned by any effort to constitutionally amend it. I fear that we're stuck with it as written, along with oft-misunderstood court decisions.

I find cause for concern in the articulation of some, usually members of the federal administration or their legal advocates, that there is no "right to privacy" because the term per se does not occur in the Constitution. Isn't the strong implication of privacy, as in Amendment IV, sufficient?