Unconstitutional

Guns have certainly improved over the last two hundred years or so, but what's your point? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) it was decided that 2A applies to individual ownership, which is really the only decision they could have made. First it makes sense given the way 2A is worded, secondly I don't imagine the powers that be would want people forming militias in the first place, which is exactly what most gun owners would do if there were no alternative. Anyway, the point is that everyone is responsible for protecting their nation. Standing armies arguably have a far worse track record of needless violence, and concentrating the means of applying force i.e. guns into a single entity with a chain of command that depends mostly on a few people at the top is hardly egalitarian any way you look at it.

Yeah, I'm aware of Heller. And I think it's wrong. If the Second Amendment is talking about Americans' rights in their individual capacity, why is it prefaced with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"? That seems to me to be quite clearly stating the "well regulated Militia" is the cause of the necessity of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Regarding your second point, the Constitution itself acknowledges state militias elsewhere.

I haven't studied the case thoroughly, but in any event the result is fairly clear. Again, prohibiting citizens from owning firearms is obviously authoritarian and objectively not an egalitarian policy. Without a provision like 2A, a government can essentially do whatever they like with their citizenry. The idea that citizens do not need firearms and that the state will always act in the best interest of its citizenry is absurdly complacent, short-sighted and historically ignorant. It is unacceptable.

Incidentally, does wikinews accept editorials? I don't necessarily mean about gun control, but just in general.

I don't advocate a complete ban on firearms, only more restrictions.

No, we don't publish editorials.

Such as? I suppose you'll say something along the lines of background checks, arbitrary magazine restrictions, etc. but we've heard the same line for many years. They're always "only more restrictions". Consider how easy it would be to abuse such a system of 'restrictions' once it's in place. It's complacent to assume otherwise.

It's too bad you don't accept editorials. Without at least some analysis, so much media (not necessarily here) amounts to propaganda laundering because it merely passes along what is said at press releases, by politicians, pundits, and so forth with the air of "objectivity". Wikinews should consider accepting them.