A truly horrible thing happened on Friday the 14th in Newtown CT. It is far past the time to have the discussion about guns
This is important.
"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."
Those are the actual words of the actual 2nd Amendment. For real and for true.
Now, you'll notice that the 3rd word in the amendment is "regulated." That's really important because it presents what you call "context" for a position. We can debate what militia means, because that's changed a lot since the time the Constitution was written and ratified. Professional soldiers, and citizen soldiers both fought in the American Revolution. Militia then was just that; citizens who left private lives to fight in defense of their country, and then returned when the fight was won. They, of course, needed to bear arms in context of being part of a militia in its necessity to provide security. Now there is a standing Army (and Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) for security of a free state. There has been for a long time. There are also National Guard members, and Reservists in all branches of the military. Don't forget police. So why do people not in the military, or police need guns?
Hunters? Absolutely reasonable Hobbyists? Umm, OK.
Who else? Nobody. That's what regulation is for. That's why the Founders put "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. It's there, and it has meaning. The list of people who need non-military firearms is brief, and there is no reasonable argument that either hunters, or hobbyists need assault weapons, fully automatic firearms, high capacity magazines, armor piercing shells, or any other military grade hardware.
If you want a handgun in your house to protect yourself, your family, and property go for it. Odds are it'll hurt someone you love before it hurts a bad guy, but it's your choice. If you hunt, then hunt. If you target shoot, then target shoot. But there is no argument against Congress or a State limiting access to certain types of firearms based on people doing those things legally. None. Zero. And if you think you need an AR-15 to fight off the police when the government goes full tyranny you're in need of a check up. (Interesting how "defense against internal tyranny" becomes a rationale we hear when the President has a "D" in front of his name.)
Some say arm the teachers in response to school shootings. What if a student got the gun? Lock it up. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of it as a deterrent. Arming teachers is a horrible idea. First off the tea-billies don't think they should be trusted to be in a union to collectively bargain working conditions, but hell, give them all guns. That's the response to all shootings; "If everyone had guns then......" That idea is beyond stupid. In 62 mass shootings not one citizen gun owner has made a difference.
It is absolutely reasonable, and appropriate to regulate assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and other military grade hardware. Any measure doing so is not an infringement on a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights. It's not even close.