I believe that guns are a perfectly worthwhile thing to regulate, however, I also think that given the second amendment's rather strong words it would represent a dangerous change from previous policy regarding the interpretation of the bill of rights. If we applied the same leniency to other parts of the constitution, I could see dangerous implications for free speech, habeas corpus, etc.
Wile I agree with the dangerous implications for free speech, etc. if we applied the same leniency, I feel the need to establish that freedom of speech does not result in mass shootings or killings, while the same cannot be said about people using the right to bear arms as a way to obtain semi automatic rifles.
Excellent points. I'm roughly in favor of a taking a very strong look at the Constitution (written constiutions being, it seems to me, a bad idea for a government), which would solve some of the problems you mentioned. That is, the second amendment is clearly out of date -- why do we still treat it like it's the second most important right of the people after freedom of expression?