We are having mass shootings at a minimum of one a month. Ordinary person-on-person gun violence happens daily. Ideally, neither of these would be regular occur

We are having mass shootings at a minimum of one a month. Ordinary person-on-person gun violence happens daily. Ideally, neither of these would be regular occurrences, but they are. Are we to just throw our hands up in the air and say "oh well"? Would you still think that if you were among those shot, as you lay there bleeding to death? Let me tell you this - I'm politically liberal, and I support 2nd Amendment rights. Reading the various arguments presented in this article's thread, I agree with many of the 2nd Amendment viewpoints addressed about the nuances and such of the right. Even so, I feel that something needs to be done to get our current out-of-control situation under control. The problem is, I'm not sure that circle can be squared, so to speak. The consensus seems to be that if you want an intact 2nd Amendment, then you have to be willing to be among the dead victims in a shooting. I'm not sure that is what the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to be about. In fact - just thinking about the wording of the 2nd Amendment right now - isn't it more focused on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the protection of country (or State?), being part of the militia - against internal or external threats to it? That is, again thinking about it, it doesn't seem to indicate that such people are free to carry or use their weapons at just any time they wanted to, but for when there was a perceived threat against the collective, not the individual? Of course, they would need to always have access to their weapon, so they should be able to carry it, in case that threat arrives when they are away from home or something... This is more a exercise in reading the wording of that particular amendment - the nuances of the words, comma placement, etc. Maybe my above "re-interpretation" is not compatible; I know it certainly isn't the interpretation of the courts today. It feels like I want to have my cake and eat it, too. I don't want to be the victim, or my loved ones to be victims, of potential future random gun violence. At the same time, I want to keep the 2nd Amendment intact. For me that would mean the ability to hunt, the ability to shoot predators or varmints on my land, the ability to protect myself and my fellow citizens if needed, the ability to practice (ideally in a controlled range), and the ability to own the guns I want and keep them in a safe manner, with proper training. Is it possible for both to be accomodated? I certainly hope it can - but maybe I'm just nursing along a fantasy...