lol in the future people are going to look back and say, "people worshipped this illegal document as immutable and fought over its original prescriptions AFTER they AMENDED it and universally accepted that it can be AMENDED."

The 2nd AMENDMENT is one of the 10 AMENDMENTS, which inherently means that people realized that the Consititution is a legal document that is inherently fallible and must evolve to accomodate the wisdom of the modern age of understanding. Anyone who sits back and believes that any one people fully understood the proper way to universally govern any human populace 230 years ago is being patently absurb. Slavery was legal, women could no vote, homosexuality was a crime: these are all hallmarks of what most Americans view to be barbaric traits of Middle Eastern, predominantly Islamic nations. If people want to cling to the delineations of a bygone era, they are free to relocate to the nations that adhere to them with uncompromising adamance. The next time someone introduces that line of thinking, go tell a black person they to pick some cotton, a woman that she doesn't understand what she wants from her government, or a gay person that they made the wrong "choice" and see how well they take it.

The constitution was meant to evolve and be amended; intractability only serves to stagnate a nation.

What country gives you that right? or was this a poor attempt at being sarcastic?

Yeah, it's amusing to see people framing this as The Supreme Leader Obama vs the poor, down-trodden gun industry.  I like guns, have a couple in the house, doesn't mean I can't be concerned about the number of guns in circulation in the US, or the number of deaths per year to gun violence.  Personally, I don't have the answer, but, we at least have to be open to talking about it.   There's a dangerously large number of knee-jerk reactionaries in the US...not exactly the group of people I'd want being armed to the teeth.

It's not poor sarcasm. It's good sarcasm. Made me laugh a little. 

Ok, I thought I was done here, but this title change to "human rights" instead of "gun rights" is just outright FACEPALM

Just to be sure I read through the human rights bill http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ and nope, there is absolutely no right to M855 ammunition anywhere in there, nor the right to bear firearms for that matter, although with mental gymnastics some of you might want to spin Article 3 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." in that direction.

But there are several articles the US gov has ignored even before the Obama administration, undoubtetly with full consent of mister SocialistSlayer, like for example A5,6,9,10,11. And I don't doubt the OP would like them to go against a few more of them, like A22,25.1 .

More people than the Charlie hebdo incident get killed in Chicago many standard nights. And that was terrorism. Not a standard shooting caused by the abundance of guns in a country. 

And the argument for more guns, being impartial about this, let's throw this out there. Yes because 9/11 never happened. You're implying that a society without guns has incidents like Charlie hebdo. Yet a society that claims that more guns will fix the issue has larger scale terrorist attacks to deal with. Then there are the dozens of school shootings etc. they happen with or without gun control. But in reality, they are more common in the US.

Yeah I just noticed that change. It's insane. It's amazing how many people die a year from gun violence in the US, and yet they seem to think that carrying around something made for military warfare is not just a good idea, but your right as a person. Well personally I don't want my next stroll in the park to end up being a real-life version of TimeCrisis, but that's just me...