The idea that gang violence being bad at this current time period means anyone, including Piers, can't explore ideas around regulating firearms is ridiculous.
Aren't the very first words of the 2nd "A WELL REGULATED militia"?
Well means very. Very regulated. As in a well done steak being a very done steak, this group of gun owners is described in the very first breath of the 2nd amendment as needing to be very regulated.
If you don't believe in the portion of our society that chooses to be armed being well regulated then you should be arguing against the 2nd amendment and advocating replacing it with an amendment that doesn't call for strong regulations. That is more genuine than ignoring the very first words.
This argument has been thoroughly destroyed on here over and over. I'll try to keep this short.
It's two separate clauses. The first part refers to the militia (the people as a whole), the second is for the people (individuals). You are attributing the first clause to the second, which is wrong. Just look at this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It would be incredibly contradictory to apply the first clause to the second.
There wasn't supposed to be a standing army as it's power could be abused (like Britain's was). A militia was the route the founders choose. If you look at historically context well regulated in this situation meant well trained, supplied, people be given proper ranks/jobs, etc(in times the militia is needed as again there was to be no standing army) is necessary to the security of a free state. Basically support, don't stifle the militia, have it be well supplied, trained and organized in times of need.
Also if you look at what private citizens owned back then... any and all guns available(including stuff like puckle guns), cannons, war ships, etc.
The founding fathers also talked about the 2nd protecting from tyranny. So infringing upon peoples rights to own guns would be counterintuitive. Also hunting, homesteading, protection (people & animals) was a way of life back then. The idea that they may have wanted to restrict guns to people would be ridiculous.
Edit
"Your right to bear arms as part of an already well regulated group is to not to be infringed is how I interrupt it."
No there was to be no standing army, citizens were the militia when needed