Small Member, I understand what you are saying but you seem to forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is there to fight against a tyrannical government. It's no surprise it is mainly the Dems who want to amend it. They want to change the government toward a radically different model than what it was founded upon and many people won't stand for it.
The second has stood strong for years and sadly, many want to strip it away due to others reasons such as the failure to uphold a civil society and strictly enforce current laws. Like mentioned before, all part of the "blame someone/something else/depend on the government" society some want to grow.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson
I never understand how so many can criticize the government on one topic and then go on to believe they always have our best interests in mind. The federal government needs to shrink and state governments need more say in what their people can or cannot do. California has strict gun control, people can move there if they don't agree with the majority in the state where they currently live.
Would you be for or against a law that requires all new firearms for civilian issue to be usable only by its registered owner through any type of control system (ex: fingerprint locks, dna locks, etc.) should said system become available?
I'll even concede to my hypothetical question that the system is not connected to any network so that the government couldn't 'shut it down' if they had to.
I would be against it. Again, we need to straighten out the current mess before we keep moving forward in the wrong direction. It always makes me sick to see murderers and rapists get off with easy sentences and to then watch some question why crime is so high.
Our crime problem runs way deeper than the people's right to bear arms.