Take a deeper look at what the 2nd amendment says:
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.Ok, so militia men may protect the security of our nation-state from threatening armies. Sounds great. How has this been misconstrued to allow anyone the right to carry weapons for any purpose?
I think most people who own guns keep them for their own personal protection (almost always from other citizens too). I'd like to point out that Switzerland requires all men between the age of 21 and 32 to enroll in military training, where they are given an M-57 assault rifle and sometimes a handgun as well. These government issued weapons are ONLY to be used during a national crisis/war. Since Switzerland has NO military, they rely solely on this standing army of militiamen, and it is "well regulated." However, Swiss gun control laws for recreational guns are even more strict than they are in the US, particularly laws regarding concealed handguns.
If you ask me, THAT is an identical representation of the rights our 2nd amendment should be granting. However, many Americans have misinterpreted it to simply "the right to bear arms" ignoring the condition preceding it.
Another useful tad of info: Under USC, Title 10, Chapter 13, Sect. 311, every male citizen of the US between 17 and 45 years old, is in the Militia whether they realize it or not.
In conclusion, firearms for personal protection or recreation should NOT be covered by the 2nd amendment. It clearly states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the context was in the sense of protection against armies (whether foreign or civil). Besides, if the Chinese did attack us, I'm not sure a concealed pistol would be very useful defense. If you wanted to be a REAL modernized militiaman, you'd need a Hummer or an AH64 Apache helicopter in your backyard.
That being said, I am not against the prospect of citizens bearing arms, but I don't believe the 2nd amendment covers that right. A new law would need to be enacted to allow private/recreational firearms for the public.
I also strongly agree that background checks should be performed during sales, to prevent felons and mentally unstable citizens from purchasing them. As it stands now, about 40% of gun transactions in America require no background check whatsoever. Furthermore, America has one of the leading gun homicide rates in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence, just under countries like Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.
Banning guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining them, and it won't remove the desire to do harm either. The gun is just a tool which can be used for good or bad. I don't know what the best solution to decreasing violence is, maybe investing in mental health/ education, helping feed the poor, etc.
