Here’s a proposal for those who believe unlimited, unregulated gun ownership and gun use are the sole point of the Second Amendment. If you’re so convinced that a firearm improves the safety of you and your family, please move to a neighborhood like South Los Angeles or sections of Philadelphia or Chicago where drive-by shootings are commonplace. Join a gang, if you, must, but come back in a year and a day to tell us how reality has impacted your opinions and notions. If you’ve survived. Or life even matters.
PUTTING AN INTERPRETATION TO THE ULTIMATE TEST
Jnana's Red Barn 
I’ve always felt the wording made it pretty clear that we were supposed to remain capable of overthrowing our government, should it become tyrannical again. Then again, in those rough early days, owning a gun made a lot more sense, for hunting, self-defense, whatever. Nowadays, both reasons are pretty far-fetched–but the NRA has made the discussion about the right to own guns, not the ‘right to bear arms’.
That nuance has a huge difference, no?
Yes, and it’s always been a pet peeve of mine: the sanctity of the second amendment, when we were so willing to give up the bar against taxing personal income. What happened there? Double standard much?