Firstly MrKim, thanks for replying without being a reactionary idiot

One of the points pro-gunners are often not eager to discuss is this:

major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[7]

taken from here:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Was that not the point of the second amendment? That you have the right to raise hell against invasion or a government that dissolves your rights to the point where the US can no longer be recognised as the state it was intended to be?

Shooting at one-another willy-nilly was surely not the intention? Or does the US administration just need to spend more time & money on policing?