The text of the 2A was not written in a way that makes it perfectly clear what the right is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. There has been a constitutional debate going on for well over a hundred years if the 2A is a right granted for the citizens of a state to form an armed militia or to all citizens to bear arms. It was only relatively recently that the SC in Heller declared the right to be held by all citizens which in practical terms makes it difficult for expansive gun control measures to survive a constitutional challenge although the court ruled that the right is not unlimited and can be restricted by “reasonable” measures. However if the court in future years loses its conservative majority, I would not be surprised if the court overturns its previous decision and rules that the right is not a personal right but a right held only by state militias i.e. the national guard. If that occurred, I suspect you will see states and even the federal government enact far more stringent gun control measures. I think a constitutional amendment is unlikely as you would need 2/3 of either congress or the senate plus 75% of the states to approve a change or the states calling for a constitutional convention which has never occurred.
Perhaps the Militia Act of 1792 can clear the air a bit on the intent of the 2nd amendment. While the SC may not have ruled it a citizen's right until lately... that act is pretty clear. EVERY able bodied male from 18-45 will own a rifle and a certain amount of ammunition. What I find interesting is the fact that so many folks somehow believe new laws will stop the evil in men's hearts. If someone wants to commit murder, they WILL find a way. If you take away our scary "assault" rifles, they'll use hands and feet... which by the way account for far more murders each year than ALL rifles combined. Feel free to check that on the FBI's website... I'll wait. That stat alone should tell you our media and lawmaker's intent is NOT about safety... (Rifles account for approx 2.5% of gun homicides each year) If it was, they'd be going after handguns.
Add to Bobda's comment above Terry's assessment of the current state of our society, and you understand the complexity of the problem. It certainly is, at least IMO, a societal issue and not a gun issue. Regarding those who become defensive and project what a more liberal SC might attempt to do, I'd suggest you look at past liberal-majority SCs who did nothing (also observed by Terry). Bobda's analysis of the history of SC 2nd Amendment decisions is pretty clear, similar to the precedent of Roe v. Wade, which is unlikely to be overturned by the currently conservative SC, at least based on comments made by the SC candidates who were approved by Congress (an issue for another discussion...or not). I'd like to see stronger enforcement and - like I said earlier - tweaking and tightening of gun show/private sales and red flag laws - not new laws which are likely to be struck down by the courts. IMO, the problem needs to be carefully thought out in relation to societal issues and not reacted to in a knee-jerk way.
TOK, I would describe the pre Trump SC as conservative but unpredictable. You had 4 liberal justices - Kagen, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomeyer. Ailto, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy were Republican appointees and generally considered conservative. Kennedy however was the deciding vote in the decision granting constitutional protection for gay marriage and Roberts and Kennedy were unwilling to overturn Roe. Conversely, Ginsburg and Breyer had been strongly criticized by liberals for some of their opinions that deviated from liberal orthodoxy as was Scalia by conservatives for his opinions on 1st amendment issues.
My thoughts on why a more liberal court may likely reverse Heller is based in part on this article written by the late Justice Stevens: The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure
On Sid’s point on social issues and crime, here is an interesting interactive graph issued by the Economist, a British publication: Two nations
Going back to the Second Amendment itself, the word seems to stand out is "free." They could have used just "State" or "Nation" for that matter but they chose to modify it. The US had just come off a decade of war to separate from the British monarchy. A large portion of the fighting force were the sunshine patriots, the citizen soldiers who when the demand of planting and harvesting didn't interfere were part of the militias that supplemented the Continental army. The framers of the Constitution were most proud of the individual liberties that were spelled out in the Constitution and its quite possible that sec. 2A was primarily aimed at protecting those freedoms from enemies within as well as without.
I guess my question to Stevens would be: What constitutes the militia, and when did the list come out of arms that would be used by such a group? As I said above, the Militia act of 1792 spells out that able bodies males were required to own a rifle and ammunition. So if all able bodied males are the militia, then what's the problem with them owning the weapons they were required to have? And how the hell does the SC get past the entire last sentence? The RIGHT of the PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed... And to add some clarity - the "Well regulated" part at the time of writing meant "well supplied", not "controlled" as some today would try to infer.
Chauvin verdict is in and will be read later this afternoon. To me it seems like he should be guilty, but I didn't listen to any of the evidence so my opinion is not valid. I hope that we don't have a massive riot after the verdict is reached and that the crowd doesn't include any armed individuals and that the police/national guard are able to contain the crowd with out any violence.
"If you take away our scary "assault" rifles, they'll use hands and feet... which by the way account for far more murders each year than ALL rifles combined." Maybe Bruce Lee in his prime could have pulled off a mass murder of 8 people but I doubt one person would have succumbed to this crazed 19 year old kid in Indianapolis using his hands and feet only before he was tackled and beat to hell.
I think you missed Scotts sarcasm with the hands and feet. But the bottom line is that murder is ancient and massacres are the same. They used what ever they could, rocks, sticks, their fists and feet (kicking) etc.
In case you thought I wasn't serious... Check out the data: Expanded Offense .....................................2018.......2019 Murders by Rifle:...............305........364 Murders by hand/feet:........712........600
That's pretty shocking....total for Firearms though was slightly over 10K. I assume that is mainly because it's a whole lot easier to have a handgun handy than a rifle and the numbers reflect that with almost 70% of the firearms deaths being due to handguns. I see that in the footnotes hands,feet and fists also includes shoving.