It's not often I agree with Tribesman, but he's spot on with this one.

As a total outsider I would say that your second amendment is far too ambiguous. At first I thought that this:

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.
Was a fragment of the amendment, but it seems it is the whole thing Who wrote this? A drunk man?

I'd think it'd make more sense with one small word added:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/

I also think that the original intent means very little now, the constitution should be adapted to suit the time. The simple fact that it has split the country in two should be clear enough evidence that it need clarified.