[The recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment really doesn't change much, in fact, the situation is still quite muddled as far as I am concerned].

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, I propose a new 2nd Amendment--an amendment to replace the current 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  This proposed text is offered as a talking point to start discussion of the topic.

Section 1.  The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.  The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3.  Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable to the common welfare of the public at large under Section 2 by a two-thirds plus one vote of Congress in two consective sessions of Congresses before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms.  Because reasonableness can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the exact same worded bill--this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). 

It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.  Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). 

The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

[These are not my words entirely but others have contributed to this statement.]