I remember a long time ago watching Bowling for Columbine, I believe one of the fathers of the Columbine shooters was speaking at a rally, and said something to the effect of "You do not need a machine-gun to hunt deer." That quote always stuck with me. And I've said on Hubski before, the thing that always got me was that the people who really want guns and the people who might actually need them are not on the same venn diagram, in that the people who really want guns to protect themselves from some invisible sinister force that I don't think I've ever seen before.
And to be fair: there are a lot of gun aficionados who are perfectly harmless, who are responsible citizens, and who will go through their entire lives without so much as knowing someone who fired a gun in anger. Here's my fundamental problem with gun control: I'm of the opinion that those who talk about "what the framers meant" are performing the same style of divination as those who interpret the bible. The Constitution was supposed to be a living document and state-of-the-art weaponry in 1786 extended to but didn't quite encompass "rockets red glare" (Congreve rockets weren't developed until 1804). Rifles were another 20 years away. And while you can kill a mofo with a black powder musket, no doubt, its efficacy isn't too much greater than a longbow. The arms available for bearing were a little different back then. On the flip side, "being necessary to the security of a free state" pretty much says "for purposes of throwing off the yoke of tyranny." THAT is where the gun nuts have a point: when the army and the citizenry are comparably armed, the army is less likely to enslave the citizenry. That's where the militia movements come from - the Montana Freemen, the Branch Davidians, etc. When the Black Helicopters follow the secret NATO signs to throw you into FEMA concentration camps, you'll be glad these fine upstanding citizens are there to protect your liberties. Theoretically. In practice it's all bunk, in practice the armed forces have A-10s and shit, in practice the Preppers don't give the first fuck about your liberties so long as they get to practice their "stand your ground" defense. BUT the kernel of truth is there: the 2nd amendment deals primarily with the needs of the people to protect themselves against organized aggression and a well-armed citizenry is ruled by consent, not by decree. So in theory, there ought to be a way to keep the crazy, the megalomaniacal, the unhinged and the unsafe from Ruby Ridging us all to death. But in theory, that's exactly what they WANT you to think because hey - the Soviets and the Nazis both called political enemies "crazy" and threw them in asylums/gas chambers. So I get where they're coming from. You need a "well-regulated militia" whose regulation cannot be co-opted by any tyrannical force intent on neutralizing their effectiveness. The organizing force behind that "well-regulated militia" would operate under the same aegis as the NRA. They'd probably say a lot of the same things. They'd probably counterbalance gun control exactly the same way. So here we are.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.