A bit of both.
If him, or others like him, had insisted on stricter gun laws, then maybe he'd be alive...or alternatively, if he had not pushed for free access...So that is karma of sorts.
BTW, this is what the constitution says:
“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."
There are two dominant schools of thought on what this actually means:
1. Collective Rights Theory - Focuses on the phrase “well regulated Militia.”
- Argues that the right to bear arms is tied to service in a state militia (like the National Guard).
- Historically, this was the prevailing interpretation for much of the 20th century, especially after the 1939 Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, which upheld restrictions on certain weapons based on their lack of military utility.
2. Individual Rights Theory - Emphasizes “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
- Argues that individuals—not just militia members—have a constitutional right to own and carry firearms.
- This view gained major traction with the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that individuals have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.
What the Courts Say Now The current legal interpretation—especially after Heller and the 2022 Bruen decision—is that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry firearms, though reasonable regulations (like background checks or restrictions in sensitive places) are still allowed.
Therefore nobody should act as if their right to carry arms is absolute. It has been a subject to interpretation all along, and even in its recent individualist interpretation the court recognizes the right of the state to regulate via reasonable restrictions. |
