@977, I understand that the US has a very bad gun problem. And I acknowledge that and am not going to just hide under a rock and deny its existence. However, there is a line to be drawn, and I'd like to be able to carry a weapon with me if I feel that its necessary. I should have the option of not relying completely upon the police to save my ass if I find myself in a sticky situation, using what weapon I am most comfortable with. Of course, that would exclude assault rifles, because I've no need for one. But working out the gun problem will take decades, if the US does choose to work towards that way, and it should not involve the complete and utter abolition of the second amendment. That's a bit too far, don't you think?

@976 yes you can buy asault rifles in the US. you can walk in to a store in florida and buy an A R 15 with no checks at all. they are limited to single shot semi automatic but they can very easily be converted as was shown in a school shooting there a year or 2 back.

Ethin, I think I see why you're resistant, and I understand that as an American, you're very used to the idea that your country in part defines itself by allowing citizens to carry firearms.

But ask yourself this:
1. Practically speaking, how great is the need for a gun for your average citizen?
2. Practically speaking, how likely are citizens to need guns to defend themselves from the government?
3. Following from that, how likely is it, practically speaking, that a citizen actually uses their firearms to defend themselves against the government?

As has been pointed out, this part of the constitution was written during an entirely different point in history. If there was ever a period in history where it made sense to own firearms and to carry them about, I believe that time has long passed. I feel that you might be resistant to change purely because some part of you feels that to get rid of the freedom to walk around with a gun will somehow make America less American. If that is, in fact, the way you feel, I urge you to probe the problem from a different angle. The only real tangible result of American gun legislation and the second amendment, in this case, are things like school shootings, hate-crimes, and mentally ill individuals committing mass homicide because weapons that can kill whole groups of people are far too easy to get hold of. I don't hear of nearly enough gun-owning Americans doing good in the world because they have the right to bear arms. Where were well-meaning armed Americans when riots broke out and police started using tear gas on innocents? Where were they when george Floyd and countless others died? Hell, Brionna Taylor's boyfriend owned a gun, and all it resulted in was Taylor herself being shot and killed following a no-knock warrant and entry into her home.

This is not a shining example of what it means to be American; if it is, I think your problem runs far deeper than the gun violence itself, as I'd be pretty disgusted to be proud of a country whose main selling point was "hey, if you're American, you can walk around with a gun". That's...not really a thing anybody needs to be proud of, especially when so few people actually do anything meaningful with that freedom. I promise you that most other countries that have stricter gun control - stricter by far, I might add - don't foster an atmosphere where your average person cowers behind seven locks and bullet-proof glass because they don't have a gun. Oh, there's crime, sure, you'll get no argument there, and guns do exist. People get shot. It happens. But because guns aren't all over the place, it's not nearly the sort of numbers we're talking about in the States. So I say if we can do it, so can you. And resistance, to me at least, simply boils down to an unreasoned aversion to change.

@982 and 983, answers:
1. Practically speaking, pretty important. Not just for self-defense but for other sports like hunting. People use guns for self-defense more often than you realize; we just don't hear about it because its not usually reported.
2. Rarely, and that's been "rarely" since the last American civil war. Given the tension that's arose this year, however, that may change.
3. Against the government? Answer to 2 was purely a guess -- I have no statistical numbers.
4. Whether they succeed would entirely depend on the size of the force and how well-trained and coordinated it was. The force wouldn't need to be a full frontal assault; there are many kinds of warfair, and the sneakiest of kinds can cripple any authority in power given the right circumstances.
However, the above four questions focused on governmental usage of guns. What about non-governmental usage of self-defense with guns? I did briefly touch on that, and a quick search indicates that this happens far more often than we think. Its hard to come to any justifiable answer because both sides claim different things.
Do I think that we need more gun control? Yes, I do. Do I think that we should do what 981 said? Hell no. To address the other points in 982: I don't feel that getting rid of guns will make America less American at all. I feel that getting rid of guns completely -- or making it somehow a privilege -- will endanger far more people than it would if we didn't get rid of guns or make it some kind of special privilege. Its difficult, I think, for anyone to be completely objective on a matter like this, and no matter who does the research your going to find contradictory information all over the place. I am in favor of better background checks, and better regulation and legislation. What I am not in favor of is tampering with the bill of rights, particular because I can see repealing one amendment leading to the repealing of the first amendment and so on. I just feel that tampering with the constitution like that will lead us down a very dangerous path, and you know what they all say -- the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And though making gun ownership a privilege might be a 'good intention', you just know all the politicians are going to abuse the hell out of it.
I've found some sources in favor and some not, though this just goes to prove the division and the fact that its unlikely we'll reach any kind of satisfactory answer. Some sources in favor include:
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/60214382 … lf-defense
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/comme … t-skeptics
https://fee.org/articles/more-people-us … accidents/
https://americangunfacts.com
And some sources not in favor include:
https://www.wyff4.com/article/how-often … s/10033021
https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-o … e-gun-use/
There are others, too; I read an analogy of sorts that asked why we weren't taking away all the vehicles in the nation because they cause a lot of deaths just like guns do, but I don't remember where that was. Also, according to this, this, and this we're already on the brink of a revolution, or heading towards it. Most likely a combination of the pandemic, BLM, and various other factors. It honestly wouldn't surprise me at this point; this entire country is so twisted and messed up we're practically asking for it. I'm proud to be an American, I really am... but some things still piss me off about it, though I suppose you'd find that with any country.

I think the bar for gun ownership should be reasonably high. Yes, this includes things like sport hunting. Ahem, do we really need to be hunting anymore anyway, given that we already rule the roost and can get whatever we need without resorting to that? I'm not saying ban every gun, everywhere, for everyone, ever, eternally, but it definitely needs to be much, much, much tighter than it is right now. I don't see why anyone needs to be wandering around with a gun.

In the Wheel of Time series, there's a sect of people called the Aiel. The Aiel, for reasons I won't go into, are totally okay with things like spears, knives and bows, because those can be used for hunting and for other things as well. Knives can be used to skin a kill, spears can be used to spit it while cooking, etc. Swords, on the other hand, are taboo in Aiel culture because their only purpose is to kill. You don't go out and kill a deer with a sword. I mention this because the car analogy brought up in an earlier post makes me think of this. Cars kill plenty of people, sure, but cars aren't designed with that in mind. Guns do absolutely nothing except kill. There is no other reason to have a gun than to kill something with it, or at the very, very least, to convince someone else that you are -prepared to kill with it. Personally, I could argue that a lot of problems in America come right down to just that. Folks are willing to go all the way to that extreme point for what they believe in. And okay, you might call that courageous, gutsy, whatever, but the inside-out version is that folks in America also seem very willing to inflict their beliefs on others...with force, if necessary. I want your stuff, so I'll point a gun at you and tell you to hand it over. I want your body, so I'll hold you at gunpoint while I have my way with you. I want what's in the cash drawer, so everybody get your hands up while you pass over the money nice and slow. I want you to hear what I say, so I'm going to go shoot up this night club full of gays. I want to go on practising oppression, so I'm going to use this gun of mine to shoot another person of colour. I want you off my property, so I'm going to threaten to take your life before you can take what I own.
It's "I want" taken to the very last degree, and it's fucking disgusting to me that this has been so deeply woven into supposedly American cultural values. I'm well aware that the grand majority of Americans do not, in fact, think this way, but when you defend your constitution, you are in essence defending ideas like this.
Also, doesn't it strike you funny that these amendments are actually called amendments? To amend something means you are updating, revising or otherwise changing it. Clearly, the constitution is not an inviolate piece of law; if it were, then black people still would not be treated as people under the law, just as one example. I don't see the slippery slope you speak of, Ethin, as a valid defense here. I respect what you're saying to a large degree, and I am glad that you're in favour of tighter gun control. We agree on those fundamentals, so I'm not fully opposed to what you're saying. At worst, I feel like you're trotting out some tired rhetoric that I've heard one too many times. There are simply too many countries which have tighter gun control where the problems you're worried about don't exist, or aren't spreading like wildfire, for me to take some of your objections seriously. The constitution can be tweaked. Guns kill people, and make people feel entitled to kill others with the twitch of a finger. In an increasingly polarized culture where Americans are essentially being taught to hate one another, I feel that your talk of revolution may be more prescient than you realize. I just hope it doesn't result in millions upon millions dead by bullets.

here's a fun fact: in Michigan it is perfectly legal for a blind person to own and use a hunting rifle and to go in to the woods to hunt deer during hunting season. crazy much? just throwing that out there.

Ethin, again, there  is no evidence that any other amendments would be changed. Though I do think limits should be placed on free speech to include death threats. But the lax gun laws are just asking for trouble as I said earlier, in a revolution, mass histeria, or famine or shortage of anything, some idiots might pull out their automatic. And  will say this, it is pure fucking idiocy for a blind person to own and be allowed to use a gun. I'm sorry guys, but the ability to visualize and target your target is a visual thing, and we don't live in swamp, so your actions have real consiquences. It is moronic to allow this. Hearing isn't nearly a precise a sense as vision is.

For all dem scurry terrists who might invade 'Murica, right?

I'm seeing both points here. I agree, gun control on the US, should be much tighter than what it is. However, to those who say guns should be a privilege... think of this. Those few, privileged, people who owned guns... could very, very easily, abuse said privilege, and if that where to happen... what then for those who cannot defend themselves? Wait for the army to come and save their ass? While they get there, lots of people would've been killed already. While I do believe that one does have a right to own a gun, for self-defense or hunting, I believe that if, say said use of the gun was abused, for instance, you kill someone and it was not in self defence; your guns should be taken away, and you wouldn't be allowed to own a gun for abusing the right. Now. For self defense, at least for me, self defense means that you don't have any option. That its either kill or be killed, or something just a drastic, rape, etc. Anything less than that is... not self defense, in my opinion.

Yeah, you might be right, 993. Or they might've stopped and added in restrictions to the right. So, ultimately, what I think is this. We need tighter gun control. We need current gun control laws to actually be enforced strictly, not just at gun stores but in online gun shows and gun trades (supposedly in some states you can get a gun illegally through those). We need health checks with gun purchases and such, and restrictions on what guns you can get (e.g.: no one should be allowed to obtain a sniper rifle without a good reason for example). What we don't need are idiots screaming "Take all the guns away! No guns for eternity!" As for 3D printing guns... I'm not really sure what stance to take on that. I could say that we should make that illegal, but then some people might take that as license to ban all forms of gunmaking without some sort of license. And no, the AR-15 is [not] an assault rifle, I seriously don't get why people keep wanting it banned just because it has "assault" in its name. If your going to ban a gun, do your damn research guys about the gun first, get all the stats and information about it and then consider all that information and ask yourself if it should be banned.

996, be careful with your inflamatory language, and who you call an idiot. I have graduated from  one of the top 3 schools in the world, with a graduate degree, and have two degrees so UI hardly fit the description. My opinion results from observing the world. I really think though it wouldn't be feasable, guns should have been banned. And the ar 15. It shoots 5.56, which can punch through bullet proof vests without seramic  plating. Why the fuck would anyone need a weapon so powerful?

@998, So? Did he call you a idiot personally? That was more of a general term. The fact you took it personally... And as far as waving your degree-as  proof that your not an idiot, you said it yourself mind you... uh,
1: That is irrelevant with the topic at hand, and even if it was from the top 3 schools in the US... So what? I and many others won't care about that  fact. A degree doesn't show if someone is dumn or not. The fact you have a degree doesn't mean that, oh, i'm smart, and people who don't, are not; neither does the fact that you went to one of the top 3 colleges... indicate one is smarter or stupederthan anyone else.  Stop waving your degrees like proof of stuff. I mean, its great you went to one of the top colleges and got your degree; or degrees. But for the love of God,  quit waving them around and saying, because I graduated from so and so, and have this and that degree, i'm smart;  That's not how life works, and if you think the fact you went to  one of the top 3 colleges and have more than one degree will make us treat you differently that the rest of us, or that you somehow have a upper hand because of this... Uh, no. If i'm mistaken about this, then i'll own up to it, but this is what I gathered from your post, an attitude that do to you going to a top college and having more than one degree, your considering yourself above the rest of us, and that do to the fact that you went to so and so and have so and so degrees should automatically make us treet you differently than anyone else here. Again, if my impression was mistaken, i'll gladly own up to it.     And as far as taking the idiiot post personally... Read it again; that was general, not, personal. If the poster who posted that comment would've wanted to insubt you directly; they would've done it. Moving on though,
  even if all guns where band except for law enforcement etc... there has been; and is; abuse of power in those branches, hell there is in every branch, people abusing their power. Either,
1. All guns, and I mean, all guns; are band, and not even law enforcement gets to use them, or,
2. Gun control becomes tighter. The thing is, giving guns to only one group, is giving them all the power, as it where. As an example, with the scenario that all guns are band safe for law enforcement etc,
You see a officer abusing his position of authority. You try and stop him, or tell them to stop. They pull out a gun and tell you to fuck off, or something similar... What then? The person who was beeing abused by said authority figure... is pritty much fucked in that case, as if anyone other than another officer tried to help, chances are they would be heald at gunpoint etc. Granted this scenario is extreme at best, and unlikely, but I just made it to proove my point. And, no, i'm not saying every law enforcement officer abuses their power; no. However, there are those that do, and God knows what would happen if they had guns and everyone else didn't. For those who abuse their position as authority figures... It would suck for the ones who got abused. The thing is, banning all guns is not the right solution, unless its a complete, utter, ban, where no one except for the army, would get to have guns, and even in that case, not personal guns. Said guns could only be used in operations, then they get locked back up or put away or something. The truth is a solution to this isn't easy, ams both sides have valid points.
Far as the AR15... No. Its not a assault rifle. The AR15 is, in short, the civilian version of the m16. And for what its worth, a glock can also be turned into a smg pritty easily. So its not just a problem of automatic assault rifles, handguns can be turned fully automatic as well. Not all of them, but some, the glock beeing one example.