Congress shall make no law infringing on the risk of being shot.I think this is truer to the reality today than the archaic
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.It is true that the result of a shooting is temporarily increased security, as in more visible law-enforcement personnel and more scrutiny at public places. But that is a different "security" than the archaic text of the Second Amendment.
Further, the arms in question in the "keep and bear arms" are firearms; not drones or tanks or landmines or grenades. Everyone apparently is in favor of laws that would reduce the risk of being blown to bits. So much so that some of the other Amendments are willingly sacrificed to government agencies like the NSA. It is only the bullet wound that is sacrosanct.
I have a suspicion that the "stand your ground" laws that many states have enacted can effectively be invoked only in defense of a shooter, and not for the user of any other kind of weapon.
We all know that the "well regulated militia" part of the Amendment is rather meaningless. A well regulated militia would have their names in a database somewhere, and that is simply not permissible.
Therefore, I move that the Second Amendment be reworded to reflect its true meaning.