Your fear of MY guns is irrational. None have ever harmed a human or been used in a crime.

[ElboRuum]

95. Yes, I suppose one could.

However, not my point at all.

The point is that, as "absolute" as the OP thinks the 2nd Amendment is (it isn't, just so we're clear), as a "responsible gun owner" he/she has a vested positive interest in the control of access to guns. Why? Because moderate, sensible control now prevents more restrictive measures later. I support responsible gun ownership, and part of that responsibility is acknowledging that some gun owners are NOT responsible. There is a vested interest of the responsible in keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible.

Continuing tragedies like the one we had with Gabrielle Giffords and in Aurora, Columbine, etc. are going to raise the question with more and more urgency. Unless gun owners and their advocates start acknowledging that the country is as a whole tired as fuck dealing with crazies with guns spraying innocents periodically just to support the rights of the responsible owners, we may just see a turnaround in some of the "gains" in rights (concealed carry, stand your ground, etc.).

It certainly wobbles my faith that the OP is as responsible a gun owner as he/she thinks he/she is when the "mah gunz" tirade precedes the "sensibility" part. Why protest what isn't in question?