Original Meaning of the Second Amendment
shmoop.com
shmoop.com
However, the focus of all the discussion surrounding this issue is clearly on guns. The citizens of the US (I'm Canadian), I suspect don't provide the same right to those who would like to own a ballistic missile, bomb, etc. Though the arguments regarding the case for protection of liberties could probably be equally raised when talking about any sort of 'arms'.
Would changes to the Second Amendment have an effect on violence or crime in the US? I suspect not, as in Canada, registered weapons are rarely used in crimes, it is the unregistered ones that are the issues. Therefore, why do Americans and particularly the media keep harping on the Amendement which along with being out of date, may not be the actual root of the issues?
ADDED: Since the "collective right" interpretation was of 20th Century manufacture, the outcome was not surprising.
You seem to ignoring the amendment process as detailed in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
And the 14th Amendment, which enforces various parts of the Constitution and its Amendments on the states (and therefore has been used WRT "individual criminal acts occurring within a state"), which is the subject of McDonald v. Chicago for which the oral arguments were held earlier this week.
No. He's using an enumerated powers argument. He's claiming that the Federal govt can only do things that were authorized by the constitution and that none of the things mentioned in the BoR were things that the Federal govt can do according.
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses say otherwise.
The 14th, which isn't part of the BoR, says that states are bound in some way by something.
The first cases, which had to do with state govt officials silencing, disarming, and killing freed slaves, concluded that the states weren't bound at all by the bill of rights. That's the precedent that Chicago is pushing.
On the other hand, it has been argued that prior to the 14th, the 2nd Amendment ... pierced the states rights veil, you might say, although again that's a restriction on states, not individuals, akin to the requirement that they have a "Republican Form of Government" (small r republican, of course :-).