The ignorance demonstrated by that statement is astounding. The statement itself is also very, very troubling, to the rest of the world.

How do so many of you Americans actually believe this crap? You know those two countries that you Americans love to tout as demonstration that guns aren't the problem, but the solution? You know, Finland and Israel? Both of them require all youth to be in the army, and both restrict gun access to those who are fully trained and actually current members of the army. America does neither of these.

Meanwhile, here in Australia, we went through a similar situation to you - we had a gun massacre that was the tipping point for the issue. The leader at the time was conservative (John Howard), and he immediately put in place various forms of gun ban, set up a gun buyback system to get the guns off the street, and was supported by the vast majority of Australians.

Since guns were banned, gun violence has decreased dramatically. It dropped in the year that the ban came into force. It continued to drop after that.

Australia is probably the country most similar to America in most ways. And when we had gun control introduced, it worked. The government didn't suddenly start trying to become a dictatorship, democracy continued along exactly the same path it was already on.

You seem to love the second amendment. The thing is, that amendment was written in a very different time, a world that was very different to what we have today. And back then, I'll say this immediately - the concept of an "assault weapon" was completely alien to them, in a time when a gun shot once, and then you had to manually reload by adding the gunpowder and the bullet from the front of the gun.

What's more, why do you think guns will save you if the government really wanted to oppress you? The government has access to bombs, artillery, and military vehicles. In countries like Libya, they had full access to weapons, but it still took decades for them to rise up, and when they did it, they needed outside help to do it. In the modern world, the second amendment is useless for the purpose you claim it is most important for.

And a careful reading of the second amendment makes it pretty clear that it protects the right to bear arms specifically for the purposes of defending the nation from attack, not for defending the people from an oppressive government. And a modern reinterpretation of it would be to interpret it as the right for the police to bear arms in defense of the people from lawbreakers - remember, "police" didn't exist back when your constitution was written; one could almost argue that your "forefathers" were smart enough to foresee such an organisation.

Meanwhile, when one plots gun ownership rates against gun violence rates by country, one discovers a solid trend: more gun ownership correlates positively with gun violence. If one were to control for the nature of the gun ownership (say, by limiting it to "gun ownership by citizens who are not active members of the police or military"), the trend would be much stronger still.

The facts, quite simply, are not on your side.

I guess we'll just have to disagree because I believe that we should treat legislation that restricts the rights and freedoms of individuals in much the same way we SHOULD treat war and imprisonment, as a last resort. I can not stand the idea of knee-jerk laws and regulations being passed, especially considering the fact that while they definitely restrict individual liberty, there's no guarantee that they will help prevent the issue at hand.

the only gun laws im in favor of, and ones that will do something, arent these knee-jerk reactions of "we have to do something".

im in favor of better background checks, meaning getting more up to date infor on the person, updating records, etc. better mental health screening for the backround check. making sure people dont slip through that shouldnt own a gun, making sure felons dont get guns.

and the law that will save the most lives, ban "gun free zones"

The 2nd Amendment is primarily for the matter of self-defence against a state that has stolen power from the people - a tyrranical state. Common semi-automatic weapons (the AR-15 is the top rifle in the U.S) are necessary for defense against a tyrranical regime, 50MT hydrogen fusion bombs are not. Strawman arguments represent low capacity for logic. So on, and so on. 

Couldn't many gun owners just be educated, kind, and law abiding sportsmen who target shoot or hunt and don't want the government infringing on rights and taking away people's property?

Gun haters make the it sound like all crime could be solved with gun bans. What's the deal with them anyway? Are they a bunch of idealist crazies living in their own fantasy world; or are they elitists who think the Constitution is a living breathing document that should be changed to mirror their fantasy world?

no it just has no relevance to the operative part of the amendment.

also regulated in the time and context it was written means organized or maintained as in a state of preparedness, not government controlled. even so, it matters not as it clearly states the people have the right to have firearms, not the militia.

is english really that hard for you statist to understand.

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.

it clearly says the right of the people, not the right of the militia

I though the second amendment was so the Americans could set up a militia against any invaders (the french and british at the time). Where does it say you can use guns for personal protection? it just say citizens have the right to have arms, thats all

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Held: 

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(Source: Here)

?