Forgive the length, but I am suffering the effects of Nyquil and just got into a flow
Non-lethal bullets? Sounds like another "better idea" by those that want to further erode the explicit rights enumerated by the Second Amendment and empower the criminal element to operate without fear of meeting a victim capable of defending themselves through the use of deadly force. I see this concept as being a lot like Maryland’s built in smart-locks. You know the ones that hinder a person when they need a weapon immediately and gives the criminal (that doesn’t care about any of our laws anyway) that extra moment or two to succeed in what it is they are doing, namely killing or maiming the victim.
I see this as just a feel good idea that should stay in the entertainment world and not be exposed to real life.
Now let’s take a look at the remainder of the discussion. There are basically two theories concerning the intent of the Second Amendment, the first being that it is an absolute right of the individual to keep and bear arms (unless by criminal act they have been barred) and the second is that it is a right of the state to have available a ready and armed force to combat tyranny suffered at the hands of the national government. The later explanation has received more activity from the courts as the following excerpt shows, but is it the correct view that the courts have latched on to.
In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ``Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''').
If one takes the Bill of Rights as they were offered, meaning an entity enumerating rights retained specifically by the people (and for many it was as a condition prior to ratification of the Constitution), then the right to keep and bear arms is obviously one that belongs to the individual. The fact that it has the added benefit to the states of providing armed citizens for a militia should one be needed makes it an even greater argument in favor of the individual, in my mind, as the intent was for them to show up armed and able if ever called to service.
I think that the courts have been skewed in their thinking that it is more of a state’s right. I think that what the courts have been missing is that the Bill of Rights are all declaratory as to what the Federal Government cannot do to the people and the protections that the people have from that government, it is not what the states can or cannot do with or to their citizens.
And taking guns away from the honest, law abiding citizen is the same 
