I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Hmm, I'll see your Meriam-Webster and raise you an OED:

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

And here's another:

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):

And here's another from your friend Meriam-Webster:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

1: Campaign donations are forbidden. Each candidate for an elected office will get an equivalent place to state their platform. Advertising anything election related on a commercial (paid) basis will be a crime.

So, basically we give the various newspaper editors the privilege of deciding who gets to be President/Senator/Congresscritter? Or were you planning on forbidding newspapers from mentioning political candidates?

Wish I could remember the dude's name. He was a big shot in one of the Arsenals of Revolutionary France, not just some grunt in the field.

He had the reputation of being the fastest guy with gun in France (and presumably the world, but the French at the time automatically assumed that "best in France" was the same as "best in the world").

Note that we're not talking loose powder and shot, but prepared paper cartridges....

So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed".

So, "shall not be infringed" is weaker than "Congress shall make no laws"?

Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh? After all, neither New York City's government nor New York State's government is "Congress", therefore they're not constrained by the First Amendment, right?

Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).

and all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family than it is to any criminals or gubmint agents.

Oddly enough, everyone I know in my family (out to second cousins, pretty much) owns firearms. And not a single one of them have ever been shot....

But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.

No, my argument is that you're going to be hard-pressed to convince 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the States), and then convince 3/4 of the States, to change the Bill of Rights.

If you can manage, fine.

Do keep in mind that even if you can convince enough people to make the changes to the Bill of Rights that YOU like, it's also possible that someone else might convince enough people to make changes that you will NOT like...

Note that the number of kids who shoot up schools is so tiny that they are also "outliers".

Note also that the "kids he hates" also go to malls and movie theatres....

Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership?

Let's see..."militia"...hmm. So, any weapon appropriate to the militia should be legal. Which means light infantry weapons, since the militia is primarily a source of light infantry.

So, rifles, pistols, shotguns - legal.

Assault rifles (the selective fire ones, not the ones called "assault weapons" (which are covered by "rifles" above) and machineguns - legal.

hand-held rocket launchers (bazookas, that sort of thing) - legal.

Tanks? nope, that's not light infantry.

Artillery? nope, not light infantry.

Military aircraft? nope, not light infantry.

See the pattern?

Why are certain modern weapons banned?

Because FDR (that patron saint of the left), when he was told by his own Attorney General that he couldn't ban automatic weapons, decided to tax them out of existence.

And since he'd already turned the Supremes into sock-puppets by threatening to just add more Justices until he had a majority who would do what he told them, that worked.

Note that there is (and was at the time), legal precedent that taxing things associated with Civil Rights was a no-no (specifically, Printer's Ink - an earlier President had tried to shut up newspapers by putting very heavy taxes on Printer's Ink, and had been told he couldn't by the Supremes of the time).

o pay for it we could define tax dodging as treason.

NO, we cannot do that.

Article 3, Section 3 already defines treason. And tax dodging doesn't fit that definition however you twist it.

No, they're being added. The Militia Act specifies that all of us adult male citizens are members of the militia. What bozo is proposing is that we add a clause making the RKBA only apply when you're on active duty.

So, you have the right to have a weapon when you're in the Army, or active-duty Reserve. Hmm, so, who has ever assumed that the Army or active-duty Reserve was NOT allowed to have guns?

(Wikipedia says that in the First Barbary War, a whopping 54 Marines detachment partook in the fights, alongside the hundreds of crew of like twenty five ships or so, and all the hired mercenaries. The Battle of Derne - 10 Marines, 500 hired mercenaries...)

That had less to do with lack of money than the fact that the squadron of ships sent to the Med to deal with the Barbary Pirates only had a handful of Marines onboard.

You point to a bigger issue, strict Constitutionalists in the U.S. believe the Constitution brooks no amending, somehow it was born of immaculate conception and henceforth shall remain ever as is until fossilized.

Umm, no.

Strict Constitutionalists believe that there is, in fact, a procedure for amending the Constitution (Article V, in fact), and that it SHOULD BE USED if you want to change the Constitution.

Rather than the way that the rest of you idiots behave, which is that inconvenient parts should be ignored....