right to their own well regulated militias. I don't see that it empowers the feds to dictate policy to the states. Knowing the founding fathers distrust of how standing armies had been used for disruptive purposes elsewhere, they wanted to empower smaller, local defensive groups... and to go after slaves and Indians, which would have needed local groups, not the arming of everyone for a national defensive effort.

See if what you think still applies re: Fed/State dictation. The BOR is a listing of things that the government CANNOT infringe upon. Can a State limit free speech within it's boundaries? Well, technically, no. Lawsuits will ensue.

If the American people wanted to stop gun violence they could do it.

The political will is not there.

The 2A is just an excuse for the GOP to keep fund raise, get votes and terrorize Americans.
A fearful populace is a compliant one.

It has been 8 decades since a US Federal supreme court ruled on the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
The 1939 Miller decision was a unanimous 8-0 opinion that it was a militia based right.

excerpts, 1939 scotus Miller decision, 8-0 unanimous: Miller, (1939) Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

One would think that if the 1939 supreme court had truly thought it was an individual right, as gun nuts spin 2ndA and miller, that at least one of the justices would've objected to the wording above, arguing that 'whoa, future generations will think we ruled 2ndA was a militia based right' - but not one objected to their wording.

United States argument, bolstered by Dept of Justice amicus brief to the 1938 Supreme Court (one justice recusal due to late arrival in 1939): In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Adams (S. D. Fla.)), the contention was summarily rejected as follows:
The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. * * *
https://guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

PS: the recused justice from the 1939 supreme court later wrote a gun control paper regarding some limitations on handguns, so he would surely have made it unanimously 9 - 0.