>>>No need to change the second amendment. Just follow it. Either interpret it the way it was interpreted for centuries as applying to a “milita” and not individual.
That wasn’t the understanding for centuries. It was one supreme court ruling in 1939 that took that position. All the other many supreme court cases on this issue came to the oppisite conclusion The US never faced a legal effort to implement total gun control and a simple reading of
“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”
pretty clearly give individuals the right own guns as opposed to referring exclusively to a militia. Otherwise it would say “the right of the militia member to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” It is these type of interpretations that I’m concerned about. Once things are stretched beyond their simple meaning you can discard the constitution