* Winces in anticipation *
And yes Griffith, this is another stupid American thing.........
Most of the problem with guns in America stem from two things.
The USA is young. Far too young. ( Usually an oxymoron, I know. )
All countries have historic foundings that they mythologize and over-identify with. Films are made about their warrior founders and kids dress-up and bash each other pretending to be these folks who wrested a nation out of chaos and violence by sheer self-determination and skill at arms.
Most countries are so old that these arms are swords.
Nobody seriously runs around with samurai kitanas or copies of Excalibur. The founding myths dwell in the deep past.
For the USA, its foundational legends are the Revolutionary War and the "Taming of the West." Both fought with weapons which require little skill and were never intended for single combat, but for inflicting multiple casualties; and which are still in use.
The 2nd Amendment is clearly an archaic text. It is junk DNA that has not been overwritten, and yet whose purpose has been superseded.
Elbridge Gerry declared that a standing army is the bane of liberty. A militia of citizen-soldiers who are not engaged at arms unless mustered for a conflict was the founders' intent; which is why the 2nd Amendment is the only right which has a conditional clause.
SCOTUS has chosen to treat the conditional clause as if it were accidental. But it remains there.
The choice is obvious; army or militia, but not both.
And SCOTUS has chosen through caselaw that militia is illegal and army is the law of the land. Yet the junk DNA still sits there.
Methinks getting rid of it would be a dangerous invitation to tampering. But perhaps we can defang it by taking it seriously; a "textualist" approach.
You want arms? Fine. But the full text requires that you are agreeing upon purchase to be available to the militia when it is mustered. If you desert by not responding to its call, or are insubordinate in a time of crisis by not following the orders of your superiors you will be treated with the standard severity that 18th century militias employed to keep their men at arms "well regulated."
I would think that a little textual literalism would be all it takes for most of those who equate gun ownership with freedom to give up their arms.
And if they don't like the freedom of belonging to a well regulated militia, they shouldn't have invoked their 2nd amendment rights.
( Also, since the 2nd amendment predates any history of a standing peacetime army, I feel that its should be the first group to heed the call to arms. Though with todays conflict-happy POTUSes, these militia men might not see their farms again for a very long time. But hey, they volunteered by purchasing arms. )
And I won't even go into the more-Libertarian-than-thou reading that guns are never mentioned in the text; and that the 2nd amendment allows no restriction on private ownership of rocket-launchers, nukes &tc.