There has been considerable effort put into trying to really understand our founding fathers when the condense amendment was written.

​"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."

I believe that there are only two interpretations.

First, that the founding fathers were interested in a well regulated militia. They had just gone through the revolutionary war, and the founding fathers did not want there to a chance that the government could forbid guns and take over the population by force. I do understand their fears because the King of England could have done such a thing.

I think this aspect of the amendment is out of date.  To test the extreme, I believe that if every person capable of carrying a gun did carry a gun, the government could still take over if said government really wanted to do that.

The second possible interpretation of the amendment would be that a "well regulated militia" is a historical concept no longer possible. If that is the interpretation, the amendment is out of date and silent.  

This one should be a simple matter for the supreme court.

I'm thinking about the road rage that resulted in a football player being shot.  Further investigation showed that even the football player had a gun in his car, just didn't use it.  He's dead. The fact that there were multiple guns available in this incident does not seem to be a matter of discussion.

I don't own a gun, hand gun or rifle.  I have friends that do and I've even gone target shooting with them.  It's fun. There guns go back in locked safes in their houses.

But, the fact that I don't have a gun in the house or in the car or in my back pocket, does that put me in a group that is in particular danger?  Does not having a gun handy put me at risk?

Should I be afraid? If I had a gun would I not be afraid?