So far, we're not talking about changes -- we're talking about differing interpretations of the existing language. I wouldn't mind a change, because we could substitute less ambiguous language in place of the existing language that gives rise to such divergent interpretations. But I recognize the difficulty of passing a Constitutional Amendment (remember the ERA?), particularly when we're talking about changing the Bill of Rights, which most people in this country consider to be close to sacred. Maybe it should happen, but it isn't likely in the near future. So I'm not yet willing to concede that a Constitutional Amendment is required for my interpretation to be effective; I think my interpretation is sound based on the existing language. I would suggest that, if you want your interpretation to prevail, you seek an amendment to get rid of the reference to "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and just retain the remaining language.

I think you'd have a problem with your argument that nuclear, biological, and chemical arms were not envisioned by the framers, therefore they aren't covered by the Second Amendment. The framers dealt primarily with single-shot, black powder muzzle-loaders, and never envisioned most of the modern weapons that are now in circulation. [However, it is interesting to speculate what would happen if a modern militia relied on these weapons to resist oppression by the U.S. government.] Moreover, the framers never envisioned radio, television, or any of the other modern tools of mass-communication, but it is generally recognized (and the courts have consistently ruled) that the First Amendment applies to them.

Anyway, this has been enjoyable and enlightening -- hope you feel the same. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me.