Think of it another way, why should I be restricted in my options to defend myself? I can understand if I have committed some crime or am otherwise a danger to society, but if someone comes at me with a knife or a gun, do I just have to accept that? The police aren’t going to protect me when seconds count.

I personally don’t own guns because I think the risk of my kids finding them and hurting themselves or others is too high, and the risk of someone attacking me or my family is really low (crime rates in my area are really low).

There are lots of cases where individuals have successfully defended themselves using firearms, so I don’t think they should be outlawed. Instead, I propose a few changes:

• split police force to have an unarmed group that mostly handles traffic violations and low-risk calls
• require proof of secure storage for all weapons, which can be done by police, national guard, or registered gun sellers; this is not gun registration, just verification of secure storage (fines for failure to maintain proof would be high, fines for failing a check would be much lower and could be waived if you pass a follow-up)
• require registration of any weapons capable of mass murder, with increasing restrictions directly related to the public danger the weapon presents (i.e. more secure storage)
• third-party sales must be performed in the presence of a police officer, national guard official, or registered gun seller (to ensure buyer is allowed to own said firearm), and the fee for this would be fixed (say, $20 per transaction)

I believe the first two have no Constitutional issues, and the last two should be compatible with the 2nd amendment, but it could depend on implementation.

Because when guns were a little harder to come by, and to kill people with, a bunch of rich white guys managed to start a new country. Quickly, they added the Bill of Rights to our constitution with the 2nd amendment that says i have the basic right to own a gun.

But its actual meaning has been debated ever for decades.