Would you confiscate their firearms?

seems easier to buy 40 guns than buying yourself medicine.

I agree that the NRA is a problem. We need a left-wing gun movement to provide a viable alternative to those who are pro-guns rights but are against the policies and principles of the NRA.

I'm not sure how things are any different now. The reason for having guns is protection from hard and protection from tyranny. 

Guns are importaint in the US because the country fought for its independence through a bloody war. The government could never subgegate or oppress its people since they could always rise up against it. It's also not surprising when you consider most totalitarian governments try to take guns away from the citizenry. Any even if guns were illigal, people would find other ways to kill each other. Heck, a lot of terror attacks have been committed by trucks in Europe. At least with guns, the people with them can protect themselves. 

Have you seen Jordan Klepper solves guns? It's a comedy documentary special made for Comedy central, and in it he concludes that a majority of NRA members are pro gun regulation, and that the NRA only accounts for something like 5-10% of it's members.

I don't know if it was true, but it's certainly an interestin conclusion.

Can you substantiate that claim? I can get illegal medicine without a prescription within the hour. I can't say the same thing about illegal guns. 

The Reality is a gun does not provide real protection in a house, you are actually more likely to get you or your family killed than successfully defend yourself. This also isn't the 1800's anymore, the differential between the capabilities of the military compared to the average well armed citizen is so massive that unless the military is on your side in any violent uprising you will lose and if they are on your side then your guns aren't necessary anyway.

This is actually based on a bad interpretation of statistics. Taking a mean and saying, "you are more likely to get you or your family killed than successfully defend yourself" is not a sound interpretation of a statistic. The distribution of risk of killing oneself isn't a constant and depends on a plethora of factors. That the average person might be at more risk of dieing by their gun than killing another person with a gun, is not the same thing as everyone being at a greater risk. Furthermore, such a statistic incorporates suicide statistics, and since suicide is more common than homicide in general, of course one would be more likely to harm oneself than to harm another person, if one is suicidal. Otherwise, the distribution of risk changes significantly. 

People saying untrained US citizens with guns will be able to defend themselves from a professional US army are living in lala land

I was gonna say "they're betting on the military's training being as good as the polices's" ... but then I realized that wouldn't work, since the one thing the police are good at is shooting people