Scientific study of the human psyche has been able to show, that an individual will not be persuaded by any argument, even if he acknowledges the truthfulness and even the relevance of such an argument, as long as his belief is sacred to him.
The second amendment is sacred to people. Most of us tend to think, that something written in 1791 may, or may not, make sense in 2018. Some people don't share this notion. A lot of people, predominantly in the US, believe that the whole Bible is, literally, the words of God.
You will not be able to engage in meaningful communication with such people, never ever. That is just how we are, all of us. I think the only solution to this problem is, that we all agree to base our beliefs and convictions on factual content. To try and find facts and circumstances, that may change over time, that support, or contradict, our belief, and to be willing to alter that belief in accordance with what reality throws in our faces.
Why is it so hard to say; "I realise now that I didn't have the full picture. The facts you have presented appear to be relevant to this case. This has made me change my opinion on the subject."
Instead we admire people who say; "Nothing you say can make me change my mind about that!"
Wow, that's a person who is firm, trustworthy, a reliable provider for his family, a good citizen, etc.
Really??? Only an ***** would admit to not taking advice from anybody. And then there are plenty of others who will look up to that *****.
It's a bit like people saying; "My father beat me up real bad every now and then, but it hasn't done me no harm!"
Yeah, right!
Today I learned that the worlds highest hotel building, some 1100ft in elevation, was erected in the capital of North Korea in 1987. However, it remains unfinished and empty to this day. It cost about two percent of that country's gnp to build, a country where people are starving. Anybody outside of North Korea would think it was a huge mistake. You can be quite sure that a great many North Koreans feel the same. But saying so would render them shot, or imprisoned.
Now, what does this have to do with US gun legislation?
Every country, except USA, has some kind of restrictions on guns. In the rest of the world, people don't have the right to own/carry a gun, but some people are allowed permission to aquire a weapon, depending on their objective need to have one ore several weapons, provided they can present themselves as sane, trustworthy people.
Would you consider it a human right for a blind person to hold a drivers licence? Should a chronic alcoholic be granted permission to fly a plane, because it is his God given right? Am I entitled to open a clinic for cancer patients and treat them with peanut butter? How many airlines sell really cheap tickets and fly ****** planes that fall out of the sky? (Not even in Russia nowadays)
Are you a lawyer just because you say so, or does it require something else?
Difficult and potentially dangerous activities need to be controlled by relevant authorities. Take just this last sentence. Is there anyone in his right mind who won't agree at least with that? Then, let's begin the debate about gun control from there, and see what we may agree on.