Whichever side avoids death. Except both do and don't. It's crazy stuff.
Guns potentially saves freedom and protect us from oppression and harm.
Lack of guns potentially saves lives.
However guns aren't the only things that kill. I would say it is a persons intent to kill that endangers people and not guns themselves. Cars are arguably a more dangerous weapon yet it gives us freedom.
It's about finding the proper balance. A lack of guns could be more dangerous then what we have right now. A good argument to that is, if guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns. Yet guns provide an easy and quick way for someone with an intent to murder to actually murder (even if it means murdering themselves).
Personally, I believe guns are a right and private property. Touching that on a national level and not at the state level is going to far in my opinion.
It all depends on how you interpret it.
It does not say that gun control is prohibited
It was made with the idea of a militia (that no longer exists) in mind.
Arms means weapons and not necessarily mean guns.
All have been discussed and debated.
There are many arguments to get by the Second Amendment that any lawyer would implement.
Also, a politician get away with doing something unconstitutional. Obama has managed to do it.
Okay, now I know to never to click the second spoiler in Assasin's signature ever again.
♦ The Fuchsia City Guru ♦
Sig Image: having trouble relocating sauce, think it was on pixiv