The preamble is NOT part of the Constitution. And of course, “General Welfare” and “Domestic Tranquility” mean different things to different people.
I can see “Domestic Tranquility” being interpreted as anyone who does not parrot the Party line is shot or sent to a re-education camp. We are now too “sensitive” and progressive to allow freedom of speech.
I’ve seen people in this forum use “General Welfare” to mean the government has no limits and can do whatever it wants. I worked with a fellow from Guyana who retired from the US Army and believed the same thing. I hope that this isn’t a commonly held belief, especially among people IN the government.
It is hard to believe the author is a law professor.
The Federalist Papers makes it clear that a major purpose of the Second Amendment is to give people the right to keep and bear arms so that the States can form or call up a militia outside Federal control as a check against the Federal power conferred by the Constitution to form and operate a military. This was intended as a reassurance to the States as a restraint on runaway Federal power. Her proposal completely ignores this purpose.
The right to use deadly force in self defense in appropriate cases, including the use of firearms, was already well established by the common law when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The Second Amendment also constitutionalizes this right. Her proposal eviscerates it.
After all, you only have one life to live that we know about and the government is really in no position to protect it.