the next amendment, maybe

     If the people--the voters-- of the United States want to take guns out of private hands, they would need a constitutional amendment.  Gun advocates argue that the intent of the framers ( of our Constitution ) was that every citizen should be allowed to own a gun. I find the "intent of the framers " argument to be worse than spurious. The men who "framed" our Constitution were some of the plainest writers and clearest thinkers who have ever lived. Their intent is evident in their written words. They left us a written law, and the capacity to change that law when we disagree with it. What's there in plain words is " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". We can't merely wish these words into something else--a dangerous precedent. We have written laws so that we are not subject to the whim of a king or potentate. We may never get all the way to "equality under the law", but without written laws, we would still be medieval.
    As for the "intent of the framers", what the people of the United States did, in 1775,  was to form militias that were illegal, according to the British government. The American Revolution began when these militias fought to defend their store of arms--guns and ammunition-- from confiscation by the British. We are taught to admire this, as part of the history of the freedom enjoyed by American citizens. But using it to advocate gun ownership would mean that paramilitary groups and neo-Nazi militias have the same rights those embattled farmers insisted on at Lexington and Concord.
    

more constitution

     Amendment V of the United states Constitution states that no person is "for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". According to a "literalist" interpretation of the constitution, that means that if the case is not a capital case--one that might end in a sentence of death--the accused can be tried as many times as the court likes--until the court gets it right, or obtains a conviction.

an idea for gun regulation

     Some people insist that the government has no right to regulate guns at all, since the United States Constitution guarantees them the right to "keep and bear arms".  Tell them you don't see why a private citizen needs automatic weapons, and they become true patriots. What we might do is redefine "arms", since "guns" aren't mentioned in the Second Amendment.  We could become "strict constructionists" and decide that "arms" means "small arms"; or we could become "original intenters" and decide that the framers must have meant only muskets and flintlock rifles.
    If  I have a "take" on the Constitution, it's that the Constitution is a written statute, and that it says what it says--no "interpretation"--it's in English. No "reading into it"--we write things down partly to make this impossible, or at least difficult. No "framer's intent". The intent of some of the most eloquent people who have ever lived is clear in the document. Any case that can't be made using the words as written needs to become a case for an amendment, not an "interpretation". You might call me a literalist, who would tell the gun lobby: " it says arms, but never mentions guns".

rights of the accused?

    I had someone tell me that since it says "the rights of the accused" in the U.S. Constitution, that the Constitution only applies to those accused of crimes--that it has no meaning to anyone else. This same person could go on in some detail about what "our" rights are--but by "our" she meant the people who shared with her the experience of having been tried for a crime. In her view, only these people have a legal guarantee of freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the rest. I do not know if she learned this in prison, or whether she merely "read it into" something she was taught elsewhere. By the way, nowhere in the Constitution does it say "rights of the accused". That is merely the way we refer to the due process amendments--the amendments that spell out how a trial is to be conducted, and under what circumstances a person may be tried for a crime.

    The U. S. Constitution is for all Americans. It is, in fact, the supreme law of the United States. No law can be passed by the federal government ( the U.S. Congress and Senate, also called the legislature) or by any state government that conflicts with the Constitution. That is what is called "unconstitutional".  

Suggestion--no one gets out of prison without passing a citizenship test.