You're not at all addressing what I said in the post, but to clarify:
Yes, the 2nd Amendment has been around for 200-something years. We didn't have the constant mass-shooting problem until recent decades. We also didn't have the NRA as a primarily arms-dealer lobbying organization until recent decades. For the first century-ish of its existence it really was the "AAA of gun owners", not the political arm of the arms dealers. So that suggests... the problem isn't the 2nd Amendment, it's the NRA, or more generally the power of lobbyists in general.
I at no point said I wanted to have the government "grant 100% of every American's personal security". I didn't get into personal security at all. I have a laundry list of issues with the government and with both major parties, but that's off topic for the moment. You're attributing to me a statement I didn't even get close to making; I would appreciate it if you don't make up things I didn't say.
Abortion is also completely off topic and has nothing to do with the point in the slightest. You don't know what my stance on abortion is, so don't try to bring it in where it has nothing to do with anything.
It is simply false to claim that the 2nd Amendment guarantees everyone the right to own any weapon of war they feel like. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the survival of a free state". It gives an actual reason, right there, and includes "well-regulated". Also bear in mind that historically the arms in question were single-shot muskets, and when raising an army it was common to expect people to bring their own weapons to the battlefield. The US had a paltry standing army at the time, and was reliant on local town militias (organized, managed the local government, now turned into the state national guard) for defense. The "survival of a free state" was as much about defending against invaders as the oft-claimed defending against a government run amok.
"There are 4 boxes to use in defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. Use in that order." (I'm not sure of the original source but I've seen it circulated often.) - Which means if you get to the point of needing an Ammo box, you have already failed as a citizen three times. The claim that it is "the only right to that helps to guarantee that all our other rights will not be stripped from us" is only applicable if you view violence as the most important part of a functioning society. I do not.
You missed the part where I explicitly said that "take all the guns" is not a viable approach, nor is it one that most people are calling for. (Some are, but not most.) But we can't even get the basics down like trigger locks or background checks or mandatory training (that well-regulated part) because of the NRA's lobbying.
Please don't try to turn this into yet another "us vs them, all or nothing" debate. My point is precisely that such an approach is what is killing us, literally and figuratively, and the NRA and arms dealers actively encourage that division.
If we want our kids to stop dying, we need to move past that. Fixing the broken political system is the first step to moving past that, and to fixing a myriad other problems we have.
Thank you. After reading that reply, I was somewhat exasperated, as it clearly showed that they didn't read to the end.
But you made a far better reply than I could have managed. I take my hat off to your prowess.