"No... because that does nothing to address the actual problem... which SURPRISE!! Isn't guns or even access to them!"
Is that true? Are there any statistics about how much the availability of guns (per some population) influences the number of gun-related deaths per population?
And even if that doesn't exist or isn't true.... let's say that it is just something cultural in the US, statistically speaking per 100 people or something, more likely to suffer from stress or mental illness... wouldn't that be all the more reason to have stricter gun control until THAT gets better?
The Constitution is outdated in some regards. All of my reading and research indicates this is some sort of left-over common law from English Bill or Rights that had to do with Protestants and Catholics. The Catholics took away the guns of Protestants. This pissed a ton of people off so they built a law in to protect. And that carried over.
So should everyone have grenades? Gas? Tanks? F16s?
I agree with Nial. It is a hyperbolic example meant to drive home the fact that if you are willing to concede that people shouldn't have THOSE things, why are you so opposed to conversations about people not having OTHER THINGS? How much firepower do you need to protect your family?
The wording clearly indicates protect yourself from a tyrannical government. But it was written at a time where the government and the people had the same weapons.
I think extremists on both sides are idiots.
Supporting stricter gun control doesn't mean I hate guns and its the first step to some master plan to take them away.
Similarly, it doesn't mean there should be NO GUNS or that anyone who has one is some sort of rootin' tootin' trigger-happy kid-killing Rambo.