Some people suggest that weapon regulation, rather than banning weapons is the solution. After all, nothing in the Second Amendment prohibits the regulation of guns. Moreover, some type of weapons regulation is supported by the majority of Americans:

since Gallup and the National Opinion Research Centre began polling Americans on the issue in 1959, consistent and decisive majorities have actually favoured some forms of firearm control. It is true, admittedly, that not since 1959 has a majority supported prohibiting entirely the private possession of handguns (although a plurality favoured this option as late as 1965). However, decisive majorities of Americans have consistently favoured the enactment of stronger gun measures, such as handgun registration, licensing of owners as well as dealers, and waiting periods while background checks are made. The popular/cultural thesis is correct in so far as Americans overwhelmingly do not want to ban firearms in toto; but their support for partial prohibition and significantly stricter controls is nonetheless clear and consistent, even among gun owners and members of the NRA (Singh, 1998).

There is, however, a problem with regulating weapons, which has not been addressed in most information regarding gun control. Weapons regulations typically involve background checks, which investigate a person's history to see if they have been involved in any crimes. Many convictions come with the caveat that the person can no longer own weapons. On the surface, this prohibition seems more than reasonable, since keeping weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals, especially violent criminals, seems like an intelligent idea. However, when one stops to examine the disproportionate number of minorities and lower-socioeconomic status people who are convicted criminals, one could make the argument that these people are being subjected to governmental tyranny and are the very type of people whose rights the Second Amendment was written to protect.

Conclusion

Regardless of how the Supreme Court has previously...

No Supreme Court has been willing to make that assertion, and, thankfully, public pressure has not ever suggested that the Second Amendment be interpreted in such a literal manner. However, society is becoming increasingly more polarized, and the fact that the NRA supports private ownership of assault rifles and similar weapons, indicates that some fraction of society might actually support such a literal interpretation of the Constitution. The solution is not to hope that the Court remains a sufficient mix of moderates, liberals, and conservatives to ever prevent such an interpretation. Instead, the solution is to seek an Amendment to the Constitution, which expressly amends the Second Amendment and mandates certain restrictions on weapons ownership.