I think the problem will eventually solve itself as the number of guns keep increasing and arms manufactures keep increase the kill power of guns and ammunition, the high court will stop ignoring the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When firearms in hands of public threaten the security of the country, and very few owners of guns are members of a well regulated militia, then what is justification of the right to bear arms.
And it does not strike you odd how many people are not just committing mass murder, but suicide as well?
Why would an additional gun control law reduce shootings, when anyone can just buy illegally from any drug dealer?
Firearms in the hands of the public does not threaten anything.
The public is who we should and can trust.
It is the government that we can not trust, and it is the government that has deliberately stressed everyone to the point of shooting, by not protecting unions, letting most good jobs go offshore, by providing no public health care, by making tuition out of reach, etc.
The militia is every able bodied male adult.
Look up any state constitution as to how they define it.
But this was interesting:
{...
The "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" passed 17 March 1777, and the the subsequent Militia Act passed March 20, 1780, together with their amendments, required all white men between the ages of 18 and 53 capable of bearing arms to serve two months of militia duty on a rotating basis. Refusal to turn out for military exercises would result in a fine, the proceeds from which were used to hire substitutes.
...}
www.phmc.pa.gov
www.revolutionarywarjournal.com
