Gun control is unconstitutional

Your argument is good, but there are several flaws in your argument. In your first argument, you talk about how the wording of the 2nd amendment specifically pertains to a "well regulated militia." While at first glance, it may seem as though they were referring to a militia organized by the state government, we must also take into account the definition of the word "militia" during the time that the Constitution was being written. According to District of Columbia v. Heller, the term "militia" should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service (Source: https://www.oyez.org...). Even though the word "militia" was being used at that time, it had a different denotation back then and did not necessarily refer to a militia that was organized by the state. Therefore, the 2nd amendment allows men to obtain firearms. Next, you mentioned the words "being necessary for the security of a free state," stating that the militia can only exist if the United States is currently being threatened. Since I have already established the fact that the "militia" that they were referring to was the people, are you implying that the people are not being threatened right this very moment? Are you saying that there aren"t terrorists out there who believe that they should kill Americans in the name of Jihad? Are you saying that there aren"t countries who burn the American flag and chant "death to America"? Even if you"re going to argue that the military takes care of most of those threats, I would still argue that within the country, there are significant threats. A few examples: terrorists who have made it into the country, robbers who break into your home, school shooters who kill students, and mass shooters who aim to kill off everyone they see. Are you implying that we do not have a right to defend ourselves from these threats inside the country? Just because we had a weak army and navy when we first wrote the Constitution does not mean that we still don"t have people threatening our lives today. Despite the U.S. having the best military in the world, there are many people out there waiting to attack us, and we have a constitutional right to use guns to defend ourselves from these threats. I argue that allowing people to own firearms is very necessary for the security of a free state because it allows individuals to defend themselves in the case of an attack or emergency. The dictionary definition of the word "unconstitutional" is "not in accordance with a political constitution." Yes, you are right when you say that it is possible for us to change the constitution by adding an amendment. However, just because there is a possibility that somebody could add an amendment doesn"t mean that it is constitutional. Whatever amendment that you are trying to add is technically unconstitutional right up until that amendment is ratified. If I create a hypothetical amendment that states "it is illegal to say the f-word," that amendment would be unconstitutional (because of the first amendment) right up until the amendment gets ratified (which will probably never happen, but this is just a hypothetical situation). It is only constitutional after the amendment gets ratified because then and only then has the constitution actually changed. Therefore, gun control is unconstitutional unless there is a new amendment added to the constitution that negates or changes the second amendment. You also asked whether the second amendment applies if you wanted to obtain a nuclear bomb. The second amendment states, "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Notice the word "arms." Arms is a short word for "firearms." A firearm, at least during the time that the second amendment was written, is defined as a portable device that shoots a bullet at a target, and since a nuclear bomb is obviously not a firearm (because it is not portable and it doesn't shoot bullets), you cannot use the second amendment to obtain a nuclear bomb. Also, you cannot prove that the founding fathers would be pro gun control because they are dead. All we can do is to analyze the document that they left us: the Constitution. So please don"t state that "the founders most certainly would not want the average citizen to have dangerous, military grade weapons, hence the reason why they included the amendment system" because you cannot prove that statement. Furthermore, when you follow up this statement with the phrase "hence the reason why they included the amendment system," it makes it seem as though you are claiming that the only reason that the amendment system was created was so that the founders could create an amendment that would allow gun control laws. If that were the case, why didn"t the founders just write that in the second amendment? Why didn"t the founders explicitly state in the Constitution that the nation was allowed to implement gun control laws? Your argument that the founders wanted gun control is flawed because the founders never stated that in the second amendment, and since they are all dead, you cannot pretend that you know what their opinions would be if they were alive today.