So just to be clear everyone here in this discussion is for a certain amount of gun laws, or government control, right?
===========================================================================
... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
I'm going to let the part about a militia slide for now, because I believe it is necessary to have some sense of Article 2, sec 2 of the Constitution and a rudimentary grasp of the history of how the Militia was used for defense in those days, even being the main fighting force in some cases, and I seriously doubt that can be intelligently discussed here.
However, the part of the 2nd Amendment I posted begs the question "What exactly constitute "arms" ? Technically, I guess, everything from a rock and a slingshot to nuclear weapons can be considered "arms". Do we have the right to (personally ) own nuclear weapons, C4 explosive, RPG's , a tank , heavy artillery .. on and on.
So yes, I think there should be some line drawn as to just how much "firepower" an individual should lawfully be able to personally own. I think personally, the line should be drawn at fully automatic weapons, and basically regular magazine sizes - 6 - 9 rounds or so. Basically, I agree with the Brady Bill which expired under Bush 2's tenure with nobody apparently giving a tinkers damm. It would mean that some bats**t crazy person would be able to get off less shots in some case like this one in Co, or the Columbine massacre, or the Gabby Giffords shooting.
The continuing failure of our nation to rationally address this growing problem could end up having dire consequences in the long run. Sooner or later, enough people will say "enough" and as always too much may be done .