Gun Laws

[surfpico]

[Lakemonster]

Unfortunately..... the black and white nature of the poll options make it impossible to choose one or the other.. and the whoo cares option is definately one I dont take.
There are gun laws in place that I fully support.
Convicts of violent crimes should not be in possession of a firearm as much as a sexual offender should not be left with a child.
On the other side of the spectrum, I feel taht individuals who have no criminal background and are responsible should be let to their own discretion as to how many and of what kind of weapons they choose.
Some states like California, Maryland and New Jersey have policies that firearms that can hold a magazine of high capacity are not allowed or are heavily regulated. Some states issue licences to carry concealed handguns....  There are many states that have carry laws whereas Arizona and Vermont have a much more "freedom" inspired policy of not requiring its citizenry to acquire a licence to carry.
I am a Texas resident. it is illegal for me to carry a pistol on me in a public place unless I have a "CCL" licence. On the other hand.. I can carry an AK-47 in plain view as I walk down the sidewalk, slung over my shoulder if you will, while whistling a tune.
What is the point of having some of these laws?
I also feel that demonizing a weapon does not address issues of violence......... demonizing killers might.
Check out this link and take the survey..... theres two sides to every coin. Whats on the other side?
[url="http://www.a-human-right.com/"]http://www.a-human-right.com/[/url]

[Ravon and The Doctor]

I think that we should adopt Chris Rock's suggestion- don't worry about the guns themselves and just make bullets really really expensive- that way people will think before using them etc.

[Sonthert]

Look at the poorest African counties involved in civil wars, few guns, many deaths. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Remove guns from the equation and then you have to work on banning the next thing people find to kill each other with. Death is a very powerful weapon. The founding father knew this. They advocated revolution if the government became useless, or some such language they used. Without fear of death, how can a tyrant be deterred? Guns are the most humane way to find those ends. Pancho Villa, of the Mexican Independence fought at the behest of a leader. When he returned victoriously, the leader said, you've done well...put down your guns. He pointed his gun at el Jefe and said "Give me your watch." The leader, fearing for his life, gave him his watch. Villa said "See, thats why we can never put down our guns."

[JByer323]

I can't vote on your poll either way, I'm afraid, since the wording is poor.I've been shooting since I was four, hunting since I was seven, and carrying a handgun legally for personal defense since I was 18. I'm an NRA Range Officer, have completed a fair amount of their classes, as well as taken two classes at Thunder Ranch. Shooting sports are a hobby as mine, as well as way of life.Indiana has the highest Concealed Carry Permit percentage per capita as of '02. We have some of the least restrictive gun laws. And yet, even with these high numbers of firearms being carried daily by citizens, the shootings by legally owned firearms is very, very low.Look at Washington D.C. No guns, period. Murder capital of the nation the last what, eight years? And you want to tell me that denying citizens their right to legally defend themselves reduces crime? Look at New York. At Chicago. Murder and rapes have risen 25-50% since firearms have been banned. Don't get me started on California. You don't even live in a free state.Now tell me, with your gun bans, and crime on the rise, do you really feel safer, sitting in your pen, bahing, hoping that the sheep dog will be around when you need him?Guns will always be used to commit crimes, but there are far more important things on the American agenda then gun laws that do nothing other then making the left feel good, and banning nothing.Let's up border security to the south. Let's get the police and fire departments the money they so desperately need. Maybe when those of us who put our lives on the line each day make more then 35 grand a year, while trying to keep you alive, things will be different.Blaming guns seems to be the easy way out. Personal responsibility has gone the way of the dodo.

[Buford]

As a Libertarian, and a VA resident who has been carrying a .45 on a daily basis for years, I'd have to say that all gun laws are useless. All of them. What about murder with a gun, you say? What about felons? Well... murder is already illegal, regardless of what weapon killed the victim, and the weapon being a gun doesn't make it any worse than say, a knife or candlestick. The person's still dead. In the case of violent felons back on the street - if they've served their debt to society through prison, then they should have all rights restored upon release. If they're still that much of a danger to society, why are they being released in the first place?A firearm is a tool and a weapon. And, yes, it can be a very effective deadly weapon regardless of the shooter's physical condition. It'd be pretty useless for self defense if it wasn't.I open carry occasionally (legal in VA with or without a concealed handgun permit), and every now and then someone will ask me if it's loaded. Of course it's loaded! A firearm without ammo is just a complicated brick.VA isn't perfect but it's still better than a lot of states. We have open carry without a license (excepting state parks, which require a license to open carry), no registration, unrestricted private secondary sale (no paperwork necessary), no magazine capacity limitation (excepting one bizarre old law about certain localities that permit holders are exempt from), full preemption (localities can not enact stricter regulations than state law allows, excepting discharge/noise ordinances). The list of "off-limits" places isn't very long, which currently still includes schools, courthouses, Federal property (which is a Federal issue, not state), and commercial carrier airport terminal buildings. That last one was added in a recent legislative session as part of a compromise to get full preemption, which sucks, but still full preemption was worth fighting for. Currently concealed carry into restaurants that serve alcohol is still illegal, but open carry is not as the law specifically says "concealed" and there is no law banning open carry. That was tacked on as a compromise measure to get shall-issue concealed carry licensing passed in 1995 and we've been fighting for its removal ever since. It was legal back in the days of may-issue licensing, pre '95.I am a member of VCDL (www.vcdl.org), a VA specific gun rights organization. I am not, however, a member of the NRA, as some of their policies piss me off. They're too soft on some issues, support some bad initatives like Project Exile, and too willing to compromise. They have also, in the past, derailed good VCDL bills in the state legislature in the name of "compromise" since the name "NRA" carries more weight - when we very easily could have gotten them passed otherwise without completely losing the bills or accepting some watered down version. Supposedly the NRA state liason is better now, and working with state groups. I'll believe it when I see them supporting our restaurant ban repeal bill.Gov. Kaine has already vetoed one good gun bill this session, which was to be expected from the former Richmond city mayor. Former governor Warner, while a Democrat, signed I believe every VCDL backed bill to pass the legislature into law.I am reasonably involved in state politics and actually ran for delegate in the state house last year. I didn't win, but I still garnered over 27% of the vote on the LP ticket.

[steve07]

I work in a correctional institution and believe it or not most of the people locked up were not firearms related gun laws don't work because certaian individuals can get them whether there illegal or not

[Sonthert]

Actually, its a complicated brick with moving parts.

[Buford]

Heh, yeah, if you've ever gotten your thumb stuck in a semi-auto action or slammed under a hammer before you know all about those moving parts

[nuschultz]

I recently just took my pistol permit class, which stresses to the max the importance of gun safety.  Prior to this class, I have been shooting various rifles since I was 14, and hunting since I was 16.
I agree with everyone else.  Guns don't kill people, People kill people.

[DownZero]

[quote name='Ravon and The Doctor']I think that we should adopt Chris Rock's suggestion- don't worry about the guns themselves and just make bullets really really expensive- that way people will think before using them etc.[/quote]I agree with that. And if you get shot, you won't have to go to the hospital to get it removed because whoever shot you is taking the bullet back since it was so expensive! hah. But seriously, I think there should be more control of bullets themselves

[zombiedepot]

I may not like guns, but I like my rights. I think some gun control is needed, like keeping them away from violent offenders, but I don't think we should go crazy as to outlaw them completely. You're more safe with them than without, I assume. Sure, a gun is meant to harm, but it can also be used to protect.
People killed people before guns, and still do with and without them. Besides, anyone can get anything if they want it bad enough. Laws or not. And hypothetically speaking, I know I wouldn't want to bring a knife to a gun fight.

[kilgore trout]

I like my rights too.  I also like
guns.  However,
I'm not sure that I would put my desire or "right" to own a gun ahead
of public safety.  If it would save even one life, I would support
banning
firearms from the country.  While many people, distinguished
members of
this forum included, are certainly responsible gun owners, there also
those who
are not.  Has anyone ever stopped a home intruder with a gun?
Sure, but
how many people have mistakenly shot an innocent person with their
legally
concealed weapon?  Don't get me wrong, I would love to own a fully
automatic AK-47, but is that necessary to protect my property?  Do
I
really need to be carrying around a .50 caliber IMI Desert Eagle on my
waist so
that I don't feel threatened?  I realize that murders and genocide
will always occur, as history has shown, but having a gun makes it that
much easier.  Simply look at countries where all guns, or
sometimes even just pistols, have been banned and compare the crime
rates.  I think that sanctioning ownership of guns is more of a
hazard than a help.


Furthermore, I'm not fully convinced that gun ownership is a "right"
in present society.  The 2nd Amendment states that "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  It seems to me that the
framers were attempting to safeguard against an oppressive government that
would intimidate and threaten its people rather than a burglar.  Remember
at this time that the federal government did not maintain a large standing
army, nor did states have police forces, thus necessitating people to organize themselves into a defensive
force.  Therefore, I think a more modern interpretation would, in light of
our well-trained police force and military, view this Amendment as outdated.

[Scarecrow]

[quote=kilgore trout]

I like my rights too.  I also like guns.  However, I'm not
sure that I would put my desire or "right" to own a gun ahead of public
safety.
[/quote]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Benjamin Franklin
<>[quote]
If it would save even one life, I would support banning firearms from the country.
[/quote]

If banning pencils would save even one life would you do that too? More
people die from alcohol and alot of other things. Your just repeating
the worn out battle cry of a liberal hippy. Reality isnt black and
white.

[quote]While many people, distinguished members of this forum included,
are certainly responsible gun owners, there also those who are
not.  Has anyone ever stopped a home intruder with a gun? Sure,
but how many people have mistakenly shot an innocent person with their
legally concealed weapon?[/quote]

Well I thought if it just saved one life everything else would be fine?
Sorry if you look at statistics its a very small minority that
mistakenly shoot anybody innocent, even less with legal concealed carry
in the USA.

[quote]
Don't get me wrong, I would love to own a fully automatic AK-47, but is
that necessary to protect my property?  Do I really need to be
carrying around a .50 caliber IMI Desert Eagle on my waist so that I
don't feel threatened?[/quote[

Who made you king of the planet to decide what is necessary for what? A
fully automatic AK also has a semi-automatic position on the selector
so if someone goes that route so be it. Not everyone lives nextdoor to
an orphanage and nunnery. Sometimes some people dont have neighbours or
anything else to get in the way of some FA fire. In any case its all
about moderation, like all things in life.

[quote]
I realize that murders and genocide will always occur, as history has shown, but having a gun makes it that much easier.
[/quote]

People who can defend themselves FROM genocide and murder will have it
occur less and less. If the good people can't have them your history
will show you that the bad people will have them. They arent called
criminals because they follow the laws.

[quote]
Simply look at countries where all guns, or sometimes even just
pistols, have been banned and compare the crime rates.  I think
that sanctioning ownership of guns is more of a hazard than a help.
[/quote]

How about instead of thinking you check it out.

In 1996, in the wake of a mass shooting, the Australian government
seized more than 640,000 guns from its citizens. According to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the next two years, armed robbery
rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnaping by 38%, assault by 17%
and manslaughter by 29%.

Following the trend from down under, the government in the U.K. also
imposed new gun controls after a mass shooting. Again violent crime did
not decrease. According to the U.S. Justice Department Bureau of
Justice Statistics, although the rates of murder and rape are higher in
the U.S., England has surpassed us in its rate of robberies, assaults,
burglaries and motor vehicle thefts. And the English crime rate has
been rising while the U.S. rate has been falling. In 1998 the mugging
rate in England was 40% higher than in the U.S., furthermore, assault
and burglary rates were nearly 100% higher in England than in the
United States.
[quote]
<>Furthermore, I'm not fully convinced that gun ownership is a
"right" in present society.  The 2nd Amendment states that "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."  It seems to me that the framers were attempting to
safeguard against an oppressive government that would intimidate and
threaten its people rather than a burglar.  Remember at this time
that the federal government did not maintain a large standing army, nor
did states have police forces, thus necessitating people to organize
themselves into a defensive force.  Therefore, I think a more
modern interpretation would, in light of our well-trained police force
and military, view this Amendment as outdated. [/quote]

Then is freedom of the press outdated because they dint know about
laser printers? Wake up. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the
other amendments. Its so when someone walks into office he knows if he
starts lining up people into camps and gassing them that the population
will fight back. Its a safeguard, and if it saves just one life, its
worth it, or does that only count when it supports your own ideals?

[Sonthert]

As a liberal who supports gun ownership, I salute the spirit of this post...thanks Heat!I believe that one direction the US has taken, successfully, one of the few, are gun laws. If we use crime as an indicator, with the advent of laws regarding licensing and waiting periods, violent and all crime have been pretty much dropping continuously for the past 10 years. I firmly support trying to preserve the intent of the framers, just like any responsible American, BUT...Scarecrow makes a fine point, we have departed from the mind of the 18th century mind so completely, we have to come to terms with the fact that new things need to be evaluated by new minds. The second amendment does not, in my opinion, protect gun ownership, never has. It was considered axiomatic that people should be able to own guns because taking lives for food or for protection was required. It would be somewhat equivalent to insisting that there needed to be a modern day amendment protecting the rights of people to be able to own and drive cars. Bad example, but most people own one and someone coming along trying to ban them would be sucked out into space or at least sent to an island somewhere. A well regulated militia does not encompass an out of work drifter who wants to buy a gun. The framers could have said "A militia" or "militias" but they chose the phrase "Well regulated militia". They had ragged milita units in the framers days too, but they still chose the phrase, for a reason. There should be a new amendment to the constitution for private ownership, as well. "Ownership of firearms and weapons for interpersonal combat, being essential to prevent the rise of despots and illegitamit governments, shall not be abriged. Weapons that can kill targets at greater than 2500 feet shall not be protected by this amendment." Simple, clean, to the point and in the spirit of the framers. Nice statistics, Scarecrow. Source? I think they indicate that guns don't cause crime, people cause crime. In our country, things are fine, I believe gun laws are just about perfect...maybe a little too lax in certain aspects, but I don;t know enough to really comment.

[kilgore trout]

It seems that I may have to put down my bong and leave the hacky-sack
circle for a moment to answer this post.  First off, your Franklin
quotation implies that gun ownership is an "essential" liberty. 
Why would gun ownership be considered an essential liberty?  What
is it essential to?  Your protection?  I suppose we should
just abolish the police force and give everyone guns so they can police
their towns themselves.  Our police forces can do much more for
public safety than private ownership can.
  People die from other things besides guns?  No
way!  Deaths from alcohol or tobacco do kill many people. 
However, people who abuse alcohol or tobacco kill themselves
not others.  Now I'm sure you are ready to say, "Drunk driving
kills!"  Well, sure it does, but it is more dangerous to drive
severely sleep-deprived than drunk.  Don't you worry about those
pencils either, I'm working with the ACLU on replacing those dangerous
tools of death with non-toxic magic markers in schools across the
nation.
  I know that I would feel a lot safer if I lived in
Rwanda and not only the Tutsis had guns but also the Hutus.  I'm
sure they would never attack each other with those guns.  Well, if
the "good" people don't have guns, but the "good" people have a force
that protects them from the "bad" people, how likely is it that the
"bad" people will be able to amass an arsenal to wipe the "good" people
out?  Do gangs refrain from attacking each other because they all
have guns?
  While assuming that your statistics are true, are
they directly related to guns?  Does the US have a more effective
police force than Britain?  Do more US homeowners have security
systems than British homeowners?  Why has the US had such a higher
rate of violent crime than Britain while we have had guns for
decades?  While banning guns may lead to an increase in crime,
there are many other factors that must be explored before saying there
is a direct relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. 
Getting rid of guns would not solve all the worlds problems, but
there is not enough empirical evidence, namely the Britain and
Australian studies, to definitively show that less guns = more
violence.  If you can show me, with all other factors accounted
for,
that their weapons bans have directly lead to more crime, then I'll agree with you.
  I have to admit I just don't understand your freedom
of the press argument.  If you are saying that our owning guns
keeps the government from gassing the American people, you are
certainly delusional.  Maybe if people in Darfur owned guns it
would keep the Janjaweed militias from slaughtering them, but are you
really making that argument for America?  That's a quite a step to
be taking.  The 2nd Amendment does not protect the other
Amendments.  The separation of powers, the federal system of
government, and other institutions protect the Constitution.  Do
you honestly think that banning guns would allow the government to
abolish the Constitution and start lining people up and gassing
them?  I think there is a separatist group in Wyoming with your
name on it.
  Of course people kill people.  Pro-gun
advocates always make arguments that "well, do we blame the match for
the arson?  or the water for the drowning?"  It is most
certainly the fault of people, not guns,
when gun violence occurs.  However, gun ownership makes it so much
easier to kill people.  I'd have to be standing right next to you
to stab you or bash your head in with a lead pipe, but I could be
across the street or 1000 yards away to kill you with the right kind of
gun.  Sorry for the long post, but it seems I'm alone on this one
so it may take a bit of text to respond to all of you.

[Scarecrow]

Felons can not own guns legally.
Most of the crimes commited with guns are commited by criminals, with
guns that have been stolen or bought off the street. Then there are some
accidents that you always hear about. What you don't hear about is accidents
that happen with knives, ect... If statistics were pulled from emergency rooms,
I am sure that injury accidents from objects other than guns by far outnumber
gun related ones.What you do not hear about is how many lives have been
saved because of a citizen that had a gun, how many burglaries have been
prevented, ect... Just face it. Gun is a tool. A much more efficient one
compared to a knife or a club or a rock. Police are there AFTER the crime has
been commited, not before. It is YOU who is there when the crime is being
commited, and you have an option of either being a passive victim, hoping for
the best, or you can be involved and be in control of your own defense. Given a
choice of defending yourself with a baseball bat or a gun, a gun is ALWAYS
better/safer for you, regardless if the criminal/s are armed or not.It's
a simple matter. If someone breaks into your house, your safety and the safety
of your family is threatened. Most people would want to protect their family.
Now, of course if the situation dictates physicall violence, you use the best
tool available to you, at least for your own safety if nothing else. People who
are conserned for the safety/well being of a criminal have obviously never
encountered a life threatining situation, or are one of those "deer in a
headlight" type of people who have no instincts to self preservation.

[Sonthert]

Isn't a real, live statistic that you are three times more likely to shoot a member of your family than an intruder? With statistics like those, regulation of guns is necessary. Is it reasonable to let people just perform surgery without medical training or licensing if they are killing three times as many people as they are saving? Of course not.B y the same token, just because you can own a gun, doesn;t mean you should own a gun. I don't own a drill press, I don't own a ax. Why? because I don't need these tools. I can go buy one if I need it, but in real terms, I live in a city, in the United States of America...nobody really needs a gun. The stories of people stopping a criminal with a gun are too few to justify having one. In a city like San Diego, seventh largest in the US, I read the newspaper and there aren't more than four, on a busy day, violent crimes in the entire city! In fact, Scarecrow, I believe the reason you don't hear those stories of guns preventing burglaries is because they are way too few and a number of the ones you hear are from bull-artists, most likely, and either eggagerated or false. I disagree, Scarecrow, having a gun doesn't give you control over the fictitious "situation", it creates an illusion of control that is more deadly than being unarmed. I also disagree, having a gun is not necessarily better in all cases. A crossbow might be preferable in some situations, sometimes a gun, but usually having none is safer. I do share your frustration in having crackheads come around and sift through my belongings, but in real terms, as my grandmother used to say, "If money can replace it, its not worth worrying about."I HAVE encountered life threatening situations, two, specifically, and survived both of them, without benefit of a gun, knife or other weapon. The other parties survived too. Everyone's alive at the end of the day, thats the important part.Statistically, isn't the number of guns per capita higher in Canada than in the US? Yet we still have more murders and violent crime? People are being jerked back in forth by two opposite paradigms in society:1. Make sure your neighbors aren;t beating their children, smoking, alcoholics, engaging in homosexual activity, dealing drugs, or miscutting their hedges, report violations; interfere in other people's lives. 2. Don't interfere in my business, or I'll kill you. I will attack Iraq, because they're messing up our good deal. If necessary, I will nuke the whole world to prevent people from interefering in my business. Two completely hostile views of the world, the result murders, and death. The idea that the US is the center of the moving planet and above all other countries...nobody can dictate to us...carries over to her citizens as well leaving a high murder rate for a modern, industrialized country.

[Scarecrow]

I do not support a complete lack of gun laws. Personaly I feel that
people should be required to get a license and proper training. The
problem in the USA is that people who shouldnt own a screwdriver are
buying guns. When you know your safety rules the only way you could
shoot someone is if you arent practicing them. Everytime I pick up a
gun I think as follows:



"ACT"



A = Assume every firearm is loaded.



C = Control the muzzle direction at all times.



T = Trigger Finger must be kept off the trigger and out of the trigger guard.



"PROVE"



P = Point the firearm in the safest available direction.



R= Remove all cartridges.



O= Observe the Chamber.



V= Verify the feeding path.



E= Examine the bore.



So aslong as you follow both of these you severely decrease the chances
of any accidents. All that remains is human error/negligence.



As for the UK gun ban I referenced before:

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm[/url]
[url="http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml"]http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml[/url]

The more you look into banning guns completely has never worked. 
If you look at switzerland the people are forced into military service
and as such have atleast a fully automatic assault rifle at home, but
astonishingly there murder rates are extremely low.

[Lukasa]

I agree fully with Tangiers and Lakemonster.

I support the right to bear arms for the reason that there will be no
final "check" in the government's checks and balances if the people
dont have the means to rise up and disassemble a government that they
deem oppressive.  If nobody had guns except for the police and the
military, the police and military would have a complete monopoly on
killing power and whats then to stop them from going despotic on the US
of A, it could be an overnight police state.  The dirty truth is
that its completely necessary for people to have the capacity to
overthrow their government in a violent revolution.

[kilgore trout]

I'm sure what prevents our government from imposing martial law upon us
is our possession of guns.  I highly doubt that any government
decisions in at least the past century, if not longer, have been made
with thought being put toward the propensity of the public to rise up
in popular revolution against any sort of tyranny.  Sure, the
framers did say that the people have a right to overthrow an oppressive
government, but would you really own a gun to protect yourself against
a police state in 2006?  Quite frankly, I don't see our government
putting the Constitution through a paper shredder and imposing its will
upon us against our objections.  Does anyone remember that in a
republic such as ours, we are the government?  If you are of a
certain age, you can be a part of that government, you can influence
legislation through petition or referendum, and you can elect whoever
you like to represent you in government.  Personally, I don't feel
threatened by the government to the extent that I would deem it
necessary to protect my rights through the barrel of a gun.  Sure,
I may not agree with some things the government does, I may even think
in some instances the government has bordered on abuse of the
Constitution.  However, rather than calling for armed revolt, I
think I might just try to get someone who I trust elected. 
Lukasa, do you honestly think that abolishing private gun ownership
would lead to "an overnight police state?"  I think the real
"dirty truth" here is that people have deluded themselves into thinking
that they are living in Mozambique or 18th century Europe.

[Scarecrow]

[img]http://www.icrgo.org/images/MAP.gif[/img]

[kilgore trout]

Well, I suppose it is possible that banning guns leads to higher crime rates, which is what your map suggests.  However, this may not be true.  For example:  In the summer, ice cream sales go up and so do drowning deaths of children.  Does this mean that ice cream causes children to drown?  Or does this just mean that a third factor, namely the rising temperature, caused children to swim more often and desire more ice cream?  Keep in mind the statistics you are using are from pro-gun groups.  I haven't done an exhaustive search of the internet yet, but from the searches that I have run, I have yet to encounter an unbiased third party that is neither arguing for nor against gun control.  There is data out there, but I'm not sure how much of it I can trust (this goes for anti-gun sites too).

[DarthHookah]

i dont even look at it from a "guns help lower crime" stand-point. the second amendment itself doesnt even grant the right to bear arms. in its wording, the right pre-exists, and congress shall not infringe upon it. do you really want to start throwing out sections of the bill of rights? the constitution is a living document, meaning that it is still being written, and can be amended. the bill of rights was written as a seperate document, one that could not be taken away. forget about crime statistics- we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. thats all i care about. you can have your flowers and hemp clothing, ill take my AR-15 and AK-47

[kilgore trout]

Go back to political science class.  The Bill of Rights is clearly part
of the Constitution, not some separate entity that you claim it to be. 
It was written to pacify those in America who thought that the
Constitution had given too much power to the federal government, thus
making it necessary to include provisions to prevent abridgment of
rights that people at that time thought to be essential in order to get
the Constitution ratified.  Parts of it can be taken away any time 2/3
of the congress or 3/4 of the states decide to (of course that will
never happen, nor should it in my opinion).  Now I am not discounting
the importance of the Bill of Rights because I believe it to be
necessary to the protection of freedom from the federal government and
one of the most important parts of the Constitution.  However, I will
direct you to my above argument against the current interpretation of
the 2nd amendment rather than wasting space here.  Consider the time
period and spirit in which the 2nd amendment was written.   Also,
your argument about the pre-existing right of gun ownership.  I would
point you to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution which
states that: Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several states which may be included within this
union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
fifths of all other Persons. Now, nowhere in the Bill of
Rights does it say that I can't own slaves, and even right there, in
the Constitution itself, it provides provisions for counting my
slaves.  So, if neither the Constitution nor the almighty Bill of
Rights explicitly prohibits slave ownership, I have that right, don't
I?  Well, unfortunately for me, it seems that times changed, the Bill
of Rights wasn't all encompassing, and the 14th amendment was created. 
You said it yourself, the Constitution is a living document.  While no
amendments from the Bill of Rights have been removed, they have been
constantly subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, whose
rulings hold the weight of Constitutional law.  Times have changed and
I believe that it is time for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 2nd
amendment.  If you will excuse me, I have to tie-dye the rest of my
shirts and tend to my cannabis plants.