3 people were killed at a UPS today. 13 killed in last 72 hours. WHY do we have

[Marengo]

93. US v Miller, and the case examined only the issue of whether or not the firearm could be...

Considered as suitable for militia use and therefore protected by the Constitution. It did not examine the scope or content of the right beyond that and did not draw any conclusions as to which interpretation, collective or individual, is correct. The opinion of the court was that the firearm in question was not protected as it was not deemed suitable, but this doesn't rise to the level of affirming the collective interpretation. Neither of the two defendants were members of a militia, and there was no argument as to whether or not they had a right to possess a firearm, only what type. The case always seemed rather shady to me at any rate, as neither defendants or their council were present.

In regard to how the right was interpreted throughout American history, my impression from what I have read is that until the late 19th century it was largely regarded as an individual right with the collective interpretation gaining ground as a means to address certain social and political trends threatening the status quo.