Please note (and this comes as someone who is a gun enthusiast and second amendment supporter)... The president has never made any statement about taking guns... The congress has never made a statement about taking guns... they have debated gun control laws... in reference to new gun purchases...
For the record... as both of those things (a gun enthusiast and second amendment supporter), I am all for gun control laws that will prevent mass shootings and shooting of innocent people... HOWEVER, not one of the proposed laws has ever come close to proposing ANYTHING that will make that change...
BUT, I do have news for those people who have knee jerk reactions to gun control propositions. Here is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
At the time that this amendment was crafted, it was considered your duty to be armed, lest the british or some outside force attempt invasion of the United States... Then the United States instituted a national military... At that point, there were still militia groups... but that practice has faded away... (read up on the militia acts of 1792)
At the time of the second amendment, the word militia LITERALLY referred to the military force of a nation. In all reality, for gun ownership to be a right, one must be part of a militia. Now days, a militia is a group of civilians in a paramilitary organization that participate in regular training to be prepared for what may come and to be drafted into service in this country's time of need.
I do not see most gun owners with that kind of dedication, discipline or intent.
HOWEVER - no matter how dense that the people on capital hill may be, they are not stupid. They KNOW that the fastest way to mobilize organized militias AGAINST THEM is to attempt a gun ban.
I would like to point out the wording of the amendment does not state what kind of weapons you are allowed to have. It also says nothing about how long you have to wait to purchase them, the size of the magazine, etc. Simply put, since the law makers that made that amendment were the same that made the militia acts 16 years later and the militia acts required every able bodied male between 18 and 45 be registered for service and provide himself with a musket... and a musket is a single load, loose powder weapon... it could be argued that any magazine or ammo capacity above one should be considered a privilege and gravy.
I have heard arguments about capacity with the statement "Who are you to tell me how many bullets I need for a situation???" As a trained competition shooter, a vet, and ex-hunter, I can tell you... if you need more than 9 rounds, chances are, you are in trouble no matter what, BUT - You can drop a magazine and reload in one to two seconds... if you are well practiced and familiar with your weapon.
Yet, most people are not in this state... which means that in most situations, a gun wielder is 65% more likely to injure themselves or a loved on in a crisis situation.
So... In closing... I support the Second Amendment... LITERALLY... You have the right to have a gun... when you also take the responsibility REQUIRED by the second amendment to train and drill with it to be proficient as a militiaman - a citizen soldier for the United States of America. If you are unwilling to take those steps, then gun ownership, as the amendment is written... is a privilege.