Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter. The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing. The goal for them is civilian disarmament. Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.
Rights can be regulated, they cannot be taken away. We have freedom of speech and assembly, but you need to get a permit in many places to hold a public demonstration. Women have the right to choose, but some states now limit the right to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The gun right (like any other) can be regulated, but not denied. Myself, I support licensure and registration, and all transactions being properly documented. None of those things infringe on the right, as compared to D.C.'s de facto ban on handguns that was overturned by Heller.
What is hanging by a thread is the Heller decision's ruling that the 2A right extends to the individual right to keep arms for self-defense, outside the context of a militia. That right is therefore Constitutionally protected, but also fragile because a court five years from now, with a majority appointed by Dems, could easily overturn Heller. That is the vulnerability that gun owners need to try to correct.
How many folks here have voted to elect candidates who have pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade? The individual gun right is just as vulnerable to political exploitation, folks.