You can't talk about the Constitution without talking about the culture that produced it. The Founders were terrified that one of them was going to rile up people, centralize power in the United States and away from the states, and replace the republic with a despotic monarchy. At the time of the Constitution, there was no federal armed forces; the military power of the United States was concentrated in the militias of the several states themselves.
There was a lot of concern that a member of the elite would create a federal army, then use it to destroy the state militias and install himself as King. So the Second Amendment reaffirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that no tyrant could overthrow the state militias en route to crowning himself King. The Second Amendment's wording is famously bizarre, but the purpose was clear: keep the federal government mostly reliable on state militias for military power.
That failed almost immediately. State militias are good as self-defense, but they're terrible at conquest. Americans wanted to conquer North America, and they would need to kill a lot of Indians to do it. The state militias were really bad at it, so the federal government got involved. The first federal army was created in 1791: the Legion of the United States.
Today, the state militias are basically dead. The federal armed forces are massive and, so far, no one has used them to crown himself King. The reason for its existence never came to pass. The Second Amendment was never about duck hunting or crime control or individual rights. It was about the distribution of American military power.
For this reason, I don't think firearm ownership (or tank ownership or battleship ownership or howitzer ownership...) counts as a fundamental individual right under the Constitution. This was the law for most of American history.
However, even if firearm ownership is a fundamental right, fundamental rights can be regulated/infringed by the government under the "strict scrutiny" standard. That is, the government can violate a fundamental right if the violation is "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling state interest". When courts apply this standard, they almost always strike the law down, which I think is mostly right, assuming judicial review is good.
But protection of the public is the fundamental compelling state interest. It is the reason governments are formed, according to Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. When 10,000+ people are being gunned down a year, whether through stochastic terrorist attacks like Buffalo or gang turf wars, the state has a compelling interest to protect the public, and under U.S. law, it should be able to pass gun control to do that.
Unfortunately, given the staggering number of guns already out there and the near-religious devotion to them by conservatives, I am skeptical that the U.S. could enact actually-effective gun control. We could ban things like the AR-15, but that accounts for a small number of murders. Most are committed with handguns, which as that old song says, are made for killing and ain't no good for nothing else. Trying to get rid of them would be a nightmare.
https://libertynewsforum.boards.net/thr ... lTo=164181