In Heller v District of Columbia, the Supreme Court found the Second Amendment to protect “an individual right to possess a firearm” for self-defense and held that a total ban on handguns violated that right.
However, this did not mean there could not be restrictions put on guns. In an article in the Economist, February 20, 2018 it states:
“The Heller majority opinion did not, in the words of its author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, secure an “unlimited” right to buy or carry weapons. The Second Amendment would not, for example, scuttle bans on concealed weapons or machine guns. And Justice Scalia emphasized that nothing in Heller “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”. Nearly every gun regulation under discussion today—from expanded background checks to bans on military-style weapons—would seem to pass constitutional muster.
To the dismay of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which takes a much wider view of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to embellish the constitutional right to bear arms.”
And guess what? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not the NRA. So when someone says they support the 2nd amendment, just say, “so do I”. If they say they are against restrictions on guns you might respond: “So what are you afraid of? Do you have a mental illness, or a criminal record or a planning on killing someone? How many more dead children do you want to see?
Whole Child Reform for more words of wisdom.