Gun control laws are (mostly) useless. While there are a few that have served some real purpose, few have done anything to make us safer. And yes, they do tend to violate the rights of people to keep the arms they so choose.
My favorite of the useless laws was the so called assault weapons ban. The name itself was misleading as it did not really ban assault weapons; it banned people from having accessories on their assault weapons. These included things such as bayonets and grenade launchers and required that the weapon be made up of at least ten domestic made parts. Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK, once commented that he did not understand why anyone would put a bayonet on it because the point of the banana clip was not only more ammunition but to be used as a short range weapon if someone got in too close or you ran out of ammo. Why you would need a grenade launcher on the most powerful of easily obtainable guns is beyond me (covering for other shortcomings most likely), particularly when it will kill someone from further away than a grenade launcher can fire. Also, it makes no sense to try to use one in a crime. If you are going to rob a bank, the tellers would see a person armed with an AK before they got inside; the police would already be on their way before you could get away with the loot. A handgun is much more often used in crimes, especially when surprise is of the utmost importance.
Stupid law number two would be that you can buy an assault rifle at eighteen, but you have to wait until you are twenty-one to purchase a handgun. I find this ignorant because this means you can buy a high-powered assault rifle and shoot the teacher who gave you a bad grade from a mile away and walk off, but you can't get in close range to shoot them where you will find it harder to escape and them more likely to retaliate if you miss or they are quicker than you.
The whole purpose of the second amendment was to keep people in power over the government. We came from a tyrannical government and our forefathers had the foresight to make sure if this government didn't function the way it was supposed to the people could regain control, if not by the ballot then by the bullet.
And there are many who would (incorrectly) argue that the second amendment does not give rights to the citizenry to own private weapons. John Adams stated "Here (i.e., in the United States) every private person is authorized to arm himself" Thomas Jefferson said, "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms," and "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The list goes on with Samuel Adams ("The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress toprevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."), and Trench Coxe ("Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.").
The second amendment is the only guarantee that the people are truly free. All the others grant us liberty at the government's hands; this one grants us liberty from that government should it try to enslave the people. As George Mason said, "To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them . . ." And so I close with Thomas Jefferson. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Resources:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Seco nd_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http:/ /www.bartleby.com/73/1065.html