Oh, you're that right wing nutjob aren't you? Ok, I'd best make this simple then.
Sadly, I suspect even when simplified, you'll get most of it wrong. Let's see, shall we?
Sure; your constitution gives your citizens the "Right to keep and Bear Arms", however what "Arms" means is different from what it meant back in 1783.
Mistake number one.
Also, not really. And not relative to what other citizens can legally carry, which is kind of the point. Muskets were pretty cutting edge at the time and gave a huge advantage to the guy using them versus the guy not, yet no one argued that arms only meant swords and shields.
When you have weapons like the sort used in so many shootings (ie: semi-automatic) so readily available then even you need to admit that the amendment needs some revision.
Mistake number two.
What revision though. If someone is able to propose a change to the 2nd amendment and then get it passed, then that's great. Will of the people and all that. But no one actually does what you propose. They talk about the need to change it, but instead of changing it (or even coming up with a propose change) just kinda want to ignore it, or pretend it says something different, or complain about it, and make snide remarks when people like me point that out.
I wouldn't outright ban firearms but the laws need revising, badly.
Fine. Propose a change then. Tell me what you think the 2nd amendment should say, and what our gun laws should be. Then tell me how that will prevent crimes like this without unduly imposing on the rights of the citizens. I mean, since you acknowledge that you don't think firearms should be outright banned, then you need to tell me what limits you'd place that would still work legally and accomplish what you want it to accomplish. Just saying "there need to be a change" without being able to say what changes you would make is somewhat meaningless. It serves only to inflame the emotions of those who want "a change", and increase the likelihood of a really poor change being implemented based on those emotions..
I'm reasonably certain that those fighting for tighter gun control laws in the US want nothing remotely like the Swiss gun laws implemented. Meanwhile, I'm quite certain that the NRA would love for the US to require everyone to train as part of the militia and keep military firearms in their homes. It would teach them respect for the weapon, more law abiding citizens would have them and know how to use them, and it would remove the culture of fear of firearms that largely leads the push for restricting them. Edited, Dec 14th 2012 6:05pm by gbaji