I believe that likely one of the best solutions is not on enabling conflict, but actually on enabling people to live the way the wish to do so — which is really the point or goal of the second amendment.

One way this could be achieved, is with local-override of rules, this is similar to how a state may over-ride a federal law, even if not de jure “in principle” it is de facto “in fact” the case, as exemplified with medicinal marijuana and even legalization in some states.

If for instance counties or even smaller subdivisions of the country were allowed to make their own local-overrides, assuming they don’t negatively affect their neighbours as by golden-rule, then people could live with whatever kind of government they wish.
The federal government, would then simply continue doing the whole “defending the borders”, and various laws and such made at their level would be recomendations for interactions of locals, and the de jure laws of interacting between states or sub-unit governments.

In an ideal world, a country would work much like a biological body, with various organs specialized for particular functions. People could move around from one organ to another based on what kind of things they would prefer to be doing — there is somewhat of that already, with big cities but is rather implicit.
When the high level body understands that it is made of various organs, then it wishes to make sure they function properly and healthfully.
Thus minimizing the motivation to terrorize themselves, similar to how terrorizing yourbody is something most people would prefer to avoid.

Allowing these small communities to make their own rules, is somewhat similar to the communes or intentional communities that survived from the 60’s, since only those that made rules, and had organizers succeeded. One of the intentional community government styles that’s quite trendy recently is sociocracy.
Far more advanced than the various 18th and 19th century political structures which is still dominant in the bloatware of most nations. Only with allowing the small community governments, and learning from them, is there hope of progress in political structure.

When people have autonomy, mastery and purpose, likely with a land of their own, to grow organic food or manufacture what they please, they are much more likely to feel calm, secure and at peace with themselves and each other, sharing their abundance with their neighbours and world market.

Which is why I first composed a method to eliminate all corruption and ethically monitor private research long before I began my research in controlling space/time.

http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

My intent is to Maximize Freedoms while simultaneously Maximizing Security. Currently freedoms are taken to increase security.

Everyone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon (extreme case of freedom) if they want to, so long as adequate precautions are put in place and maintained. But an ethical monitoring system must be in place globally to pre-emptively be sure the device will never be abused.

If I am successful in the building of a tool to manipulate space/time, I would hope that I am monitored by whomever has an interest so that they can collectively point out any shortcoming in my safety considerations.

One tool of manipulating space/time allows for the dissociation of the strong and weak nuclear forces holding atoms together (1999 FERMI project). This provides equivalent energy release as anti-matter; cheap energy. Sufficient energy to protect ourselves and the species we care for, from most global extinction events.

But what if I make a mistake?! Or someone else! Or if we do nothing and one of the naturally occuring global extinction event’s destroys all humanity?

We as an advanced technology building species, need a broad system to ethically monitor for abuse at every level; to include unethical corporations, politicians, and individuals.

An Unethical Big Brother is to be feared. An Ethical Big Brother is needed to keep us from destroying ourselves.

http://eliminate-all-corruption.pbworks.com

This system I’m sure can be tweeked to become even more ethical in sustainable nature; it needs to continually evolve to counter efforts to undermine its’ intents. But it is a good start for initial development.

Imagine a 22 caliber gun that has at the tip of it’s barrel a warped space tool, such that a plane of reference normal to anyone’s head is configurable. Any one person could selectively kill any group of people desired to evolve a future of their choosing (one person).

My personal interest is in manipulating space/time to create warp drives that will not distort coexisting alternate dimensional spaces. Others won’t be concerned about such effects.

http://jamesbdunn2.blogspot.com/#!/2013/03/summary-creating-spacetime.html

I’m far far from creating a tool, but your concerns should start building a monitoring system to help people like myself from accidentally being destructive, and for terrorists, to pre-emptivly stop them.

People are Opportunists by nature:
/w/file/57641792/3Predicting_the_Future.pdf

The problem isn’t owning the weapons. The problem is that too many of those that do do not act responsibly in their use. For every few hundred safe weapon owners, there are those who treat deadly weapons as if they were mere harmless toys, as well as those who suffer from a paranoid mindset and feel far too willing to kill for the slightest of reasons.

Despite the fear-mongering about “banning guns” the simple fact remains that any weapon owner must be responsible for how and when they use a weapon. Those who cannot act responsibly should be restricted from owning weapons which can inflict mass harm. The problem with that is identifying those who cannot act responsibly without penalizing those who do.

To be honest, it’s a catch 22 situation. A problem to which a solution does not yet exist. The right to defend yourself is necessary, however flawed the implementation.

This is an important framing because often it is society that determines how a technology can be used,or will be used, not the manufacturers of the product. Society determines what functions are useful, redundant, unnecessary and helpful. Society works out what to hack/break or break off.

The disparity of the second amendment exists not at the level of technology — the disparity exists at the level of entity. An ‘individual’ is afforded the right to bear arms. Not society. It is the individual who may be called upon to take action. In this case the framing to the EXPECTED action was in the form of a citizen militia who as a social collective, would rise up and take on the Government.

And we know that is not how the technology gets used. If the 2nd amendment was being applied as written, every person holding a gun would also need to be a member of a group capable of becoming an organised militia. FEW are.

A few years ago, an individual in New Zealand posted up a video of a home made guided missile using off the shelf components form hardware stores. The maker labs and printed weapons on the card show that weaponry is relatively easy to produce, let alone acquire.

The qualitative aspects of technology may well exist in comparing an individual’s products to those of a military. That is just a technical specs issue. But the 2nd amendment cares not for technical specs or the disparity — it allows an individual their choice of being armed.

The technological argument ignores the likelihood that it will not be an armed militia that rises up against the military against or the Government. It will be an individual (in their tens or hundreds or thousands) all taking little bites and likely dying in the process.

There’s no doubt that the use of the 2nd amendment as justification for carrying a weapon is flawed and out dated. And as it exists as an enabling social technology (law) in a society where ‘right’ are not automatically matched with responsibilities, and as all technology resides in a social setting, it is society that determines the technological pathway

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not the guarantee equality of armament with potential oppressors, but ensure that same minimum level of distributed resistance could reasonably be mounted should the need arise.

The distribution doesn’t even much matter because once the tyranny is revealed, weapons as a civilian commodity become illegal so you’re already distributed arms become the supply pool available to resistance.

One mans stockpile is the arming of a local militia.

We don’t need to change or remove the 2nd amendment, it’s doing just fine.