All well and good in theory, but how easy is it to imagine this scenario.
1. We have a school shooting in florida and dozens die. Shooter was mentally deranged and should have never had a gun. (this is true and what just happened)
2. We increase gun regulation to help further prevent unfit people from owning a gun. (Sounds great. Common sense)
3. School shooting involving a mentally deranged person that the system missed somehow. (Totally plausible. Hell the current situation, the FBI was told TWICE about this shooter and did nothing)
4. Due to the new provisions not working, more strict measure put into place such as banning certain guns. (Not all guns, but just one or two)
5. Go back to #1 and rinse and repeat until finally all guns are banned.
Many people would celebrate this happening. And as Star Wars put it so eloquently. So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause. Say what you want about the prequels, they do tell a somewhat compelling story of how a free republic can unknowingly and voluntarily turn itself into a dictatorship.
That reads like paranoia. The crucial point is that 100% safety cannot be achieved, so doing it rinse and repeat style doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to ask why people have to be 21 years old before they can be trusted to consume alcoholic beverages while they don't have to be 21 years old before they can be trusted with a weapon that can efficiently end another person's life.
Star Wars movies playing out a paranoid pro-NRA fantasy doesn't give the paranoia any more merit.
The "well regulated" part is basically saying that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. It's explaining the reason we need the right to bear arms.
That guy may be an idiot and cannot be trusted, but we can't take away constitutional rights. Know what else we could do if we go down that path? We can chop off people's arms for stealing a loaf of bread, or throw someone in jail without charges indefinitely. But we don't because we need to protect ourselves against Government tyranny - and one of the reasons we are able to do is because of our rights to bear arms.
Now if someone is CONVICTED then sure, there can be restrictions as per 5th amendment.
Your examples in this post aren't reasonable. Then again, the picture of tanks you posted in the preceding post didn't make sense either. "People need to own guns to protect themselves against government tyranny." - Do you really believe your little guns can stop a batallion of tanks that is accompanied by trained soldiers? Sure, you can fire bullets at the tanks, but real life isn't like a video game where a certain amount of bullets make a tank explode.
The second amendment was written at a time when the world worked like that. But 250 years later (forgive me if this estimate is off by a few decades) it's outdated. During those 250 years it was never the government that did anything to the people. All the harm that was done during those 250 years can be traced back to stupid people and outright lunatics.