2nd Ammendment-Dying Softly?

If the 2nd is entrenched in the constitution, then why are there so many state and municipal laws taking precedence over it? How can a state or city proscribe the bearing of arms when the constitution allows for it?
It would seem the Second Ammendment to the constitution is dying a slow death, a death by inches.
Many people are embarassed about carrying as they feel it has become socially unacceptable to do so. Rights will be taken away not by a government but by the very people who hold them dear simply out of trying to fit in.
Yet another way those rights are being eroded is by the almighty insurance companies who have been molding society for generations. My son's school ripped up all the playground equipment one day. I thought it was being replaced. Nope, the insurance company said they would tripple their rates if the school did not get rid of it.
Our modern insurance driven society changes things peacefully and without much of an outcry from those affected. Rights die slowly and and softly. Any government that tried to take rights away overnight would face rebellion. If rights are chipped away at then the change is hardly noticeable and therefore accepted.

So what can be done to keep the 2nd intact and free from being watered down by the states or municipalities? Must the exceptions to the 2nd simply be accepted. I may not be a lawyer but does it really take an expert to show you that an inalienable right is an inalienable right? Lawyers and politicians sometimes shame people iby making them feel stupid and unworthy. ''What do you know about the law or about the intracacies of government? You just leave all that to the experts who know better and who are your betters."

It doesn't take a genius to know what his rights are and that they cannot be infringed upon without changeing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I just think that the States and lower orders of government have really no business taking it upon themselves to dedide which parts of the aforementioned hallowed doccuments they will allow their citizens to have and which parts they will deny to them. Citizens having rights may be inconvenient for government and businesses at times but this inconvenience can never justify the wittling away of said Rights.

I think the courts need a good dose of common sense. They have become entangled in their own ethereal logic. They begin with a common sensical bit of logic and then attenuate it and branch off from it many many times until what they are left with is "'lawyer logic" that can no more be applied to the reality of people's lives than can the theory of communism being applied to real humman beings.
A good grounding in reality is what is called for in the kegal system- back to basics.

It's kind of difficult to live freely without too much interference from governments if one lives in a megopolis. Personal freedoms get infringed so as to make the majority happy. The East coast of the US from Boston on down to Florida is heavily built up, just look at a satalite photo of that area t night.
There is still a frontier area, sort of, left including Alaska so the US is fine compared with the UK. Those poor people have nowhere to run too.

Personal rights and freedoms is directly linked to the amount of personal space one has. As the space around one diminishes so too do the freedoms and rights.

Sure, more states are graciously "allowing" their citizens to practice what is already their inherant right. How nice. First deny rights then give less back.

The fly in the ointment, the spanner in the works or the shti in the fan is now law suits. Sure, deadly force can be used but better make sure the BG dies or he will sue you for everything you have or even if he can't because he's dead, his family will. Imagine having to shoot someone in self defence while at work where the rule is "no guns on the premises"? You could be fired AND sued by the employer.

One should always look at a law or court decision and ask the question,"Who benefits by it?"