I wrote this as a comment, but the diary vanished as I hit post. (That can happen?)
I am a pacifist. I was introduced to Quakers as a young man, and renounced violence more than 10 years ago. I believe violence ALWAYS begets further violence and that it takes more strength and courage to be a non-violent resistor.
The founding fathers of this country, however, weren't pacifists.
Many people (I used to be one of them) will tell you that the 2nd amendment was never supposed to protect automatic weapons and armor-piercing shells. In fact, this is precisely what it protects.
The point of the 2nd amendment is not hunting. The point of the 2nd amendment is that if the government starts oppressing us violently, the populace can fight back. "Cop-killer" bullets? Yes. I'm afraid that's precisely what they meant.
I'm not saying that I support this idea they had. I am a pacifist and would rather die than kill. But we must accept that weapons of war are what the framers intended to keep in citizen's hands. Weapons. Of. War.
more below
If I demand that a right-winger accept that the framers really DID intend a separation of church & state (they like to tell you that's a misinterpretation) then I think we have to accept that they also really did mean for average people to be able to own the most effective human-killing weapons available. They wanted the populace to be a match for the army.
So change the constitution if you want- I'd be all for that. But pretending the amendment doesn't really protect highly lethal weapons - that I can't support.
And honestly, has the image of stormtroopers kicking in your door ever seemed more plausible than under this President?