I think most people, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have all interpreted the 2nd Amendment incorrectly.
The only true intent behind this amendment was to allow the people to form militia groups in order to defend themselves against state, federal or even foreign aggressors. The history behind the rational not only to this amendment but also to how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted same is very interesting, if not clearly definded in this
linked summary article on the 2nd Amendment.
In a nutshell, the U.S. Supreme Court has take the first and last portions of the amendment and interpreted it to mean:
1) that the people have the right to form militia groups to defend themselves against aggressors to the state inwhich they live; and,
2) that individual free men have the right to bear firearms, primarily in support of forming such militia groups, but also in defense of one's self and for one's survival, i.e., to hunt.
Where things have gotten twisted, IMO, is where "individuals" have assumed that their right to bear arms means ownership of just about any "trigger" weapon they damned well choose from a simple hand gun to an assault riffle.
It's madness!
The problem, IMO, is individuals have exploited this Constituational amendment to their own liking. It's no longer "I need a gun to defend myself in case I or my loved ones are attacked or my property is under siege" or "I need a riffle so that I can hunt". Now, it's "I have the right to own any weapon I damned well please that propels a small caliber projectile that doesn't explode nor destroy half a city block!"
It's madness!
I have no problem with the American people's right to bear arms. What I do have a problem with is the people purchase weapondry of every assortment and using their 2nd Amendment right as a valid argument to do so. Again,
It's madness!, not to mention very unreasonable, IMO.
I applaud the effort to modify the 2nd Amendment so that it would be more applicable to what's happening in today's social climate. Clearly, the "people" are no longer needed to form militia groups; that's the job of the National Guard as ordered by each state's governor. The only valid argument to the 2nd Amendment now is can the people continue to own guns, and if so, to what extent are they allowed to own them? Should the Constitution limit "arms" to hand guns and hunting riffles? Should gun collectors also be included? If so, to what extent?
Efforts have been made to restrict gun ownership and justifiably so. What possibly rational could one individual provide for owning any type of assault riffle? Or a wide assortment of hand guns? Collector? Maybe, but then the laws should be changed to define what "collectable weaponry" truly is, and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution should be modified to support "gun collections" as a hobby and be the only rational for owning such weapons. Otherwise, IMO, using the 2nd Amendment for the sake of gun ownership of such magnitude has gotten way out of hand!! The concept of the Amendment has, thus, been severely skewed!!