If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

I hate stalinism just as much as you, but there are types of socialism that are better than what you are saying. 

Well I’m actually sure we aren’t incredibly different on economics. I’m more of a centrist

I just believe in societal standards and you libertarians do not

You are not "centrist". You are moderate authright.

I am pretty sure Greyparrot is more moderate, and then you have Dr.Franklin being an extremist, and BrothertdThomas being off-compass.

Economically, I am centrist.

Socially, I am pretty far-right. 

Moderate authoritarian.

Never seen any of Brother Thomas's stuff. Franklin is a nice fella, though.

Economically, I am centre-right.

Socially, I am left.

Government-wise, I am leaning libertarian.

I think younger people generally are like my position. You are pretty young as a conservative.

I went through a libertarian phase in late high school.

Then I realized just how important social issues are. You can't have an excellent society and culture if you don't have high standards. When you allow countries to degenerate like Weimar Germany and the Romans, then you collapse.

I would prefer a socialist government(but not too authoritarian), but if the world is gonna stay capitalist, then I am still a libertarian.

Why would you like authoritarian socialist but not capitalist?

Sorry for the late reply. We must understand the syntax of the 2A with its curious, 18th century syntax, which is not as Madison would write it today, but the order of the phrasing is important. We would put the subject of the matter first; the right to keep and bear arms," followed by its justification, to be properly prepared to participate in a non-professional, but organized army; a militia. But consider what other uses were important to the 18th century. No grocery stores; the gun was the store. Go out, hunt, acquire your own meat and bring it home. That was as necessary as going to the store is today, unless we also happen to hunt. Even then, I don't think 100% of our meat source is via hunting. Theirs was. I don't think they had commercial shooting ranges, either. So, there were other needs for having guns, but, this matter of the Constitution was almost entirely about individual rights against the power of government, ot even against foreign invasion. It was a matter of personal security and liberty, and then, if not so much now, that security and liberty was defended at the muzzle of a gun. That was the purpose then; we recognize that other purposes exist today, but the amendment does not preclude those other purposes, does it? So, why change it?

Does the 2A prohibit our right to make our own whiz-bang guns? My neighbor has machined several of his own guns. He has that right.

is that the only form of capitalism in existence? Nope. I've not acquired my stash by being authoritarian. 

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you think of the phrase "security of a free State"?

In 18th century syntax, nouns were capitalized. At the time of composition of the Constitution, and the first 10 Amendments, each State was considered free of federal incursion on the rights of its citizens and its right to legislate its own internal affairs in any matter not given to Congress to enact. Congress was given power to enact law in 17 specific items [Article I, section 8] Over time, Congress has usurped more power than granted by the Constitution.For example, you find no allowance of Congress to legislate in. matters of education, public entitlement, or even protection of citizens of States. These were to be State issues to legislate.  Citizens of the U.S. are, by constitutional decree, citizens of States, first, thus, in militia-speak, at the time, in the Revolutionary War, and subsequent as needed, you had militias that were "Virginia regulars," "Massachusetts regulars," and the like, all separate from a federal Army.

Well that's cool man.

Cuz I don't want to have to consider all that when reading the constitution. It'd be a lot easier to just edit out that confusing bit, or rewrite it more plainly.

I'd rewrite the Second Amendment to make it resemble how the Framers envisioned it to mean in a more clear way.  See Federalist No. 29 for reference.

term limits

Do you know what a machine gun is? Also your neighbour is making illegal weapons then but if you're in a state like Tennessee, Texas, Alabama etc they'll just let him own it anyway as it's not worth the hassle for the governor or sheriff to do anything to jeopardize their pro-gun support base.

The part where it allows people I don't want in office to win elections

^

Too many people right now

No, actually only Trump supporters are saying that and only Trump would throw such an immature tantrum over it.

I don't really think any particular side has a monopoly on this.

That said, among anti-Trumpers, I certainly do see it.

Oh, but that's nonsense as one side has a total monopoly on it and their own leader is going to abuse loopholes in the Constitution if he loses the election.

They have nothing to do with opposing the Constitution, Trump is sticking a middle finger up to the very ethos of the Constitution if he opposes the people's will and uses Executive power to resist being rooted out of office.

If he was actually intending on doing such a thing, the media has cried wolf about the man so many times that they have lost a great deal of their credibility as it pertains to reporting on the president. I don't really take their reporting on him seriously anymore, not after being lied to so many times about him.

Without consideration of "all that," one has a skewed understanding of the Constitution, It is, after all, a document written over 200 years ago, and must be read in that context for understanding. You probably have trouble with Shakespeare, too, and that's just out-of-context English, as well. Get in the context. It's the only way to assure understanding.

Yes, I know what a machine gun is.

No, my neighbor is not breaking the law. State law allows the personal manufacture of firearms, and that is statutory by State Constitution.