the second amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia
so if you want to adhere to your actual constitutional rights, then you need training (the 1700s meaning of well-regulated is well-trained) before you get a gun, rather than the current US status quo of handing out guns to any mouth breathing moron who wants one. and with easy guns for any untrained douchebag, we have our pathetic american status quo of high homicide rates
the american legal status quo on guns is not actually in line with the second amendment. we require people to take drivers ed and pass a course before they can drive a car. to be more in line with the second amendment, we need to require people to get gun and safety training, and then pass a test, before getting a gun. thus the *well-regulated* militia refered to in the second amendment
the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun, no questions asked. that's not actually the second amendment. why or how do people think they can ignore the *well-regulated* part of the second amendment?
and we will fix this erroneous late 20th century constitutional activism against the founder's clearly stated intent