3. If the NSA stuff is anything to go by, then yes. The unfortunate thing about government is that it never has and probably never will work with the best interests of the people in mind; it's either appealing to the interests of the party, lobbyists, or it's treated as a mere job instead of a public responsibility. It is also inherently coercive, which generally flies in the face of liberty.
^This.
@OP
I'll NEVER vote for you for president. Why? Because like most people on here, you favor taking away guns from the people while still allowing law enforcement and the feds to use guns. This is WRONG.
Why is this wrong?
As I said in another thread - the Founding Fathers believed in the Right to Revolution. That is, a government should let its citizens change it if they find it wrong - and if the government refuses to do so, all manner of revolution is justified.
So, if you want to change the second amendment, it should be changed to this:
"A well-regulated militia is essential to the peace and prosperity of a nation and its citizens. However, if a militia is deemed harmful to its citizens, the citizens themselves have the right to change or disband said militia in order to eliminate the harmful parts of the militia. At this time and by this regard, the citizens will have the right to bear arms. In addition, a citizen may evoke their right to bear arms in order to protect their own lives and the lives of other citizens if a militia over them is not able to protect them at any point.
By the above, a militia's main interest is in aiding its citizens. If ever the government(s) over the citizens become harmful to the citizens in any form, it is both the right and duty of the militia to protect the citizens' interests. In order to protect the citizens and their rights, the militia must not enforce lethal action upon a citizen unless absolutely necessary - no matter said crime of citizen. In addition, violent action is not justified upon any citizen if they are neither accused of a crime nor a danger to others.
The policies and rights detailed in this Amendment shall not be infringed."
By this, threat of military action will keep the government from doing anything against the desires of the citizens, which decreases terrorist activity exponentially. Also, in order for those times when the right to bear arms is justified to be a thing, the people will have the ability to KEEP arms - and then only BEAR those arms at said times. At the same time, the people can dismantle the militia if it is harmful to them and recreate it to better protect them and their rights. So, if the government finds ANY way of bypassing the power the military - and by that, the citizens - has over it, the citizens can change the military (and law enforcement, etc) to counter the bypass.