Quoted: 5. a) The Second Amendment to the Constitution shall be interpreted as giving an individual the right to own weapons suitable for militia use. b) The Militia consists of every citizen of the United States of America excepting those who are either imprisoned or under court supervision following a conviction by a jury of their peers for either a crime or mental disability which renders them incompetent. A citizen who had been convicted by a jury of such a crime shall have their militia status restored upon completion of their sentence or their release from court supervision. c) The duty of the militia is to, protect themselves and other persons from lawlessness, assist in defending the nation from invasion or insurrection, and to overthrow a corrupt or tyrannical government if necessary. d) Therefore the weapons allowed to the militia shall include, but not necessarily be limited to any standard infantry weapon, any standard police sidearm, and any standard riot control gear found in either police or military arsenals.

That could easily be construed to be more constrictive than current gun laws.

Quoted: Quoted: Voting only by land owners or veterans. No women Your plan is seriously fucking flawed. First, there is ONLY so much land in this country. Land is finite. However the number of citizens this country has is ever growing. The wealthy could buy up land and to try and block people of modest means from being able to afford land and thus being able to vote. Second, we're not in wars all the time. Not everybody can join the military either for one reason or another. We also would not need a gigantic military that we would have if serving was required for voting. The no women thing is fucked up plain and simple.

Property owners, ie home owners and small business owners have a stake in this country.
Veterans have put their money where their mouth is.
Women are Hitlery's #1 base and the dumber the better for her numbers.  nuff said.

I also forgot to add, no voting for anyone getting any form of .gov check.  When you take $ from the .gov, your vote is for sale.

I would put in an ammendment that the Federal government is not to provide for the common welfare of the people and that they are not to put their hands in such matters as education.

I would over emphasize that the FEDs job is to provide for the common defense for the states, transportation between states, and respresent the states in matters of foreign policy. Thats it.

Why would we need to "change" anything.  The Constitution is just fine as it is; we just need to force our elected representatives to start following it.

We're in the problem we're in now because we as a people have accepted the idea that government can solve all our problems for free.  Unless you change that attitude, changing a few lines in the Constitution won't change anything.

Quoted: Quoted: I'd limit all of our specific Constitutional rights and protections to American citizens only. The concept behind the bill of rights are that they are inaleanable human rights. The Constitution merely verbalizes and enshrines them.

That was the concept,however it's a false concept.
Most of those "natural rights" are not protected in actuality because no one agrees on what they actually are. They are subject to both the whims of the people,their legislatures and the courts which routinely restrict them at whim. Hence the need for a Bill of Rights was, in hindsight, an excellent idea as it succeeded in providing a far better bulwark than what exists to protect "natural rights". (That bulwark being the process of amending the constitution with a super-majority.)
Many of the ideas enshrined in the Constitution are far more specific than general human rights,and many of them can hurt our nation when they are used in defense of non-citizens (habeus corpus or bearing arms for foreign aggressors for example).
Giving rights to your possible enemies is ludicrous. Let international citizens protect their own rights with their own ideas of what constitutes proper law.