This example had nothing to do with the intent of the second amendment. The brother's actions are not necessary to the security of a free state. I will just keeping saying it, that phrase is equally as important as the others even though it is often overlooked.
Ya, there should be no law prohibiting any speech what so ever. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequence if you yell "fire" maliciously and someone dies.
Not sure about this one.
Again, no law should exist prohibiting you from being a jackass, but the university can expel you for cheating and make the other students retest. That doesn't infringe on the first, that simply creates consequences for some unwanted action or outcome.
I believe you are the one that has it wrong on this smh. Words matter. This forum constantly points that out. The phrase "shall not be infringed" couldn't be any more clear. It should be unconstitutional for the government to make any law diminishing an individuals right to keep and bear arms necessary to the security of a free state . That doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences for shooting up a school or trying to blow up Congress. Intent matters and the only intent covered by the 2nd is one in line with what would be necessary to the security of a free state .