Looking at that 2nd Amendment the thing that sticks out for me is that it does not in fact talk about "the right of people to bear arms" as something that shall not be abrided. It talks about "the right of the people".

The difference which that definite article makes is that it fairly clearly indicates that it is talking in collective rather than individual terms, tying in with the reference to "a properly regulated militia".

But of course the actual intended meaning of the amendment back in the 18th century is irrelevant. What determines these things is the politics and social culture of early 21st century America - and it seems pretty clear that, so far as this issue goes, this is pretty irrevocably set in a pattern that to most people outside the country is not actually sane.

It's sad but that's how it is. It's not really something where outsiders have a relevant say. Rather like slavery back in the 19th century, and subsequent institutionalised racism, it's something Americans will have to sort out for themselves.