US Constitution, 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In a New York Times op-ed Former US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a republican, called for a new amendment to remove from the second amendment of the US Constitution the right to bear arms. In response to this we may ask why? Is it because we wish to raise the age where you can buy a gun?. Establish long waiting periods, and stronger background checks? Ban whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks? Or demand training classes be longer and more rigorous? Make it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons? Or near anything else along those lines? In fact all of them are perfectly legal and can be done now under the existing understanding of the legal framework in effect. In fact with the exception of 3% of the population, those who we shall persistently call gun nuts, the rest of the population will more or less agree with any and all of those actions. In fact, the jurisprudence is the Heller decision, (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) where they affirm all of the above. What makes the Heller decision so decisive is that for the first time, the SCOTUS affirmed that there is an a right such that; “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm…” Prior to this ruling, the Second Amendment was seen only as a collective right seen in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) which held that a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment, as it could not be used in a militia. Heller affirmed similar protections in that;“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”
As such, it is not the law that is in need of changing. It is the political will to change the law that is in need of changing. But wait, in order to change the Constitution, you need strong political will. Whereas, adding any new requirement listed above would only be a mere law, an Amendment to the Constitution would be a much bigger deal. So why is it we can expect there to be enough political will to change the Constitution when there is not enough political will to come up with mere new laws to protect people? The answer is, there is not enough political will to enact mere law. Going that much further to alter the Constitution is unneeded. What is needed to be done is to reclaim the 2nd Amendment from the hands of gun nuts who think Heller’s gives them “license to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
People need to stand up and clearly say:
I support the 2nd Amendment by raising the age where you can purchase weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by establishing longer waiting periods.
I support the 2nd Amendment by having stronger background checks.

I support the 2nd Amendment by making it a crime to not report lost or stolen weapons.
I support the 2nd Amendment by banning whole classes of weapons such as assault style weapons or add on like bump-stocks.
I support the 2nd Amendment by demanding rigorous training classes!

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and Heller decision. Do not let gun nuts fool you into thinking otherwise.