No, what they* want* are studies that say “Guns are teh evil, ban them now!!!”
In an attempt to frame the boundaries of the gun debate, I postulate the following statements as axiomatic and would serve as a basis for determining what state of affairs would fit them best.[ul]
[li]The founding philosophy of the United States is that government exists to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the greatest coefficient possible. Any government that abrogates that purpose is tyrannical.[/li][li]The people themselves have the most natural self-interest in their own freedom. In general, government will not.[/li][li]People have a “right” to self-defense. I won’t try to define what a right is or isn’t, I’ll just say that it’s inconceivable that people could be expected to passively suffer theft, assault, rape and murder without redress.[/li][li]Our system of law and justice is based on personal responsibility for one’s actions. Collective punishment and preemptive detention are considered anathema.[/li][li]None of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have ever been held to recognize or confer a boundless libertarian immunity from government interference.[/li][li]Allowing unrestricted possession of nuclear weapons would lead to the end of civilization; how far down the scale of destructiveness that would cease to be true is unknown.[/li][li][del]“Assault Weapons”[/del] Semi-automatic firearms with removable magazines can be fired and reloaded faster, and hold more rounds at a time than revolvers or internal magazine long guns. Perhaps not dramatically faster (see speed loaders) but some at least.[/li][li]Assault rifles like the M-16 and the AK-47 have gained a reputation for being super-deadly, which is not justified by their actual ballistics.[/li][li]The cosmetic features of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15s look scary to some people but have very little relevance to their function. AR-15s have legitimate sporting purposes.[/li][li]It is very probably impossible that guns could be completely eliminated. If they were illegal the current black market for guns would expand. A significant proportion of buyers for illegal guns would be otherwise law-abiding people who are motivated by self-defense concerns or the ideological principle of gun ownership. If the demand is there, guns and ammo can be illegally manufactured or smuggled, and the large number of firearms already in circulation would be next to impossible to confiscate. Advances in autofabrication may making producing guns much easier in the near future.[/li][li]Historically, societies in which the possession and use of weapons was reserved to an elite have been despotic. Whether our current democracies would be exceptions to this rule is unknown.[/li][li]A small percentage of people fetishize guns. A small percentage of people are gun-phobic. Most people fall between these two extremes.[/li][/ul]
More or less reasonable.
Well, I don’t want that. I would like to actually see some real studies.
Of course, YOU must have studies that show how much safer, homes, cars, and pedestrians are if there is a gun in the home, car, or on the pedestrian, right? I mean, people wouldn’t have a gun in their home, or just carry a gun around because it made them FEEL better, would they? There MUST be peer-reviewed studies that show how much safer you are for carrying it or having it in your home, right? ;)
No, I just have the 2nd Ad, good enough for me.
LOL, yep just as I thought, Thanks!
Of course, YOU must have studies that show how much safer, homes, cars, and pedestrians are if we have the right to a free press and free speech in the home, car, or on the internet right? I mean, people wouldn’t speak their mind because it made them FEEL better, would they? There MUST be peer-reviewed studies that show how much better we are are for having free press and free speech, right?
No, because I don’t walk around everyday with a printing press or a megaphone, and I don’t keep a printing press or megaphone in my house or in my car. Assuming I DID however walk around with a megaphone, and someone asked me “Hey, why are you shouting all over the place?” my answer sure wouldn’t be “Because the 1st Amendment says I can!” I would actually have a reason for it. One backed with peer-reviewed studies 
But don’t worry, I fully support your 2nd Amendment rights. As I hope you support my 1st Amendment rights to mock people for doing things for no other reason then “a piece of paper says I can” 
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
“But you don’t have a constitutional right to own a car or a refrigerator, why should owning printing presses be a right?”
( 
)
My understanding is that it was written as to what was understood at the time, and the purpose was to allow citizens the right to protect themselves from a tyranical government. Which honestly still remains a legit concern.
Slavery might be abolished? Women and black people might get the vote? Presidents might be restricted to two terms in office? The District of Columbia might get some electors?
No, it was to provide an effective military force in lieu of having a standing one. There are other parts of the Constitution that, in fact, discuss how the government it created could *quell *insurrections and invasions.
Not in this universe.
We might have to quarter troops in our homes?
The framers fully expected the thing to get tossed and rewritten entirely every generation or two, as the country changed along with our concepts of rights and responsibilities. They even thoughtfully laid out a nonviolent process for doing so. It would astonish them to find the thing still in use so much later.
And indeed the Constitution provides for the calling of the militia to Federal service for those purposes (and “to execute the laws off the Union”) and George Washington himself exerted that authority (and even took command personally as CinC) during the “Whiskey Rebellion”. To this day all able bodied adult men up to age 45 are technically “the militia” under the law.
They relied on an armed citizenry to avoid having to maintain a large standing army (and yes partly because they did not trust it to not become a political power of its own) and because there were no national/state police forces. It would seem odd if they contemplated the armed citizenry/people’s militia as some sort of standing resistance as opposed to as an entity at the service of the nation. But then again, the notion that the people have an inherent right to self-defense and by extension the community has an inherent right to resist oppression is something that I accept and that I can completely buy the framers holding as a basic assuption.
Whether it necessarily means that the specific aspect of what weapons are used for that cannot be ruled or constrained beyond a point and what is that point ISTM is a valid policy implementation debate.
That’s because it’s tough to write a law that says, “This shall be the procedure for violently overthrowing this government…” Even democracies need an unwritten overthrow clause. In banana republics, that’s the military’s job. We prefer to let citizens do that job, with the military merely remaining neutral.
The Founders wrote extensively about the need for an armed populace as a bulwark against tyranny.
Which was sort of my point. The Constitution is critical to the running of the country and shouldn’t be amended lightly or in reaction to current events without consideration of the longer-term impact. But it isn’t Holy Gospel Handed Down From God Almighty Himself and it can be - and has been on multiple occasions - amended. Including amendments to amendments.
So there’s no reason in principle that the Second Amendment can’t be repealed or changed. I honestly don’t see it happening anytime soon, but it’s not carved in stone by any means.
Given its ambiguity, it should be clarified, ideally guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms, but with the government having power to decide which arms are permitted.
That’s probably current jurisprudence anyway. Heller didn’t make gun control difficult, in fact nothing being considered currently would run afoul of Heller. The only laws that are problematic are things like handgun bans.
Surprisingly, yes!
Once upon a time, I actually took an oath to do just that!
It at least is high time to stop pretending it’s impossible. It really does need to be done, if we’re ever going to eliminate the roadblock to progress that claiming an inviolable right allows. Getting that possibility into public discourse can, and I think will, eventually have that effect.