The second amendment is one of the most controversial parts of the Constitution, which, well, constitutes the United States. Lots of Americans cherish it. Yet in the wake of police shootings of citizens bearing arms, a question I saw posed on the Libertarian subreddit made a good point: if the police can shoot you for having a gun, do we actually have the right to bear arms?
Qualifiers: As I've posted elsewhere, I'm not calling for police abolition (for specific reasons regarding capitalism and power). Additionally, I'm not calling for violent revolution - as I've posted elsewhere, this would be highly counterproductive today, and along with the destabilization of society for normal people, it's not very preferable. I'm only pointing out the intent behind the Constitution - the thing that governs us.
While a lot of gun people tout that they abide by the law, they obey the law, they only use their gun to hunt, etc., the purpose of the gun, as per the Constitution, is quite transparently to prevent a tyrannical government from getting out of control, to 'secur[e ... a Free State' (and to prevent invasion); the right to bear arms is Constitutionally institutionalized alongside 'the Militia' in the wake of the revolution, the intent could not be more clear. Guns are part of our legal institution to prevent the government from getting out of control. This isn't a prescriptive position on my part, mind you, only descriptive of the document - there is a lot of technical debate over this issue, and I won't get into that, only these abstract principles, as they are all that is relevant to this issue.
It's key to remember this when discussing issues about guns in the US, because, right or wrong, cops shooting people because they have guns is frankly a violation of the Constitution. Is this a harsh position for cops? Of course it is. But the US Constitution was not written to empower the state, it was written to put the state in check, and empower the citizen. In fact, the person who the 2nd amendment intends to be on the other end of a 2nd amendment barrel are foreign invaders and enforcement of a tyrannical state. This is again, not a prescription, only the suggestion offered by the Founding Fathers.
This argument is important because there are three layers to the police brutality violence, even outside of issues of racism. The first is that a normal human, upon seeing a person with a gun, will probably be scared. But second, a cop shouldn't just be a normal person - they shouldn't be people that get trigger-happy in these situations. But third, cops need to also take into account second ammendment rights. Are these sane requirements? That's not the question. If we are going to keep the second amendment, then this is a consideration that needs to be had. Killing people for possessing a weapon (even in a stressful situation, although threats to life are a different situation) is a 2nd amenmdment violation.
Even if we abolished the second amendment though, we wouldn't fix the gun problem (actually, by criminalizing firearms, we'd probably make it worse - imagine the Drug War but worse). If we abolished the police, well, the private sector will get their own. And any reform between the extremes seems pretty useless. These are facts our public discourse has largely accepted. Our acceptance manifests in the total lack of highlighting the real solution to the problem.
What's the fix here? Economic democratization. People are destitute, and alienated from the value of their labor. They are forced into terrible situations, often putting them crossly with the state. To avoid this, give them the value of their labor, so they won't be forced into these situations.