A common factor when it comes to gun debate is the notion that the American founding fathers didn't have machine guns and couldn't conceive of the damage they would bring to this nation.
Fact is, the Puckle gun was created in 1718, and served as the ancestor of our modern machine gun. As a revolving flintlock, it could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes. Its design inspired the Gatling Gun.
Then in 1770 came the Ferguson Rifle-- not a muzzleloader! It was a breech-loading rifle that could fire 6-10 shots in a minute, and very accurately at that. However, when the creator died, so did the manufacturing of this gun.
By 1777, the Belton Flintlock made enough waves that the Continental Congress wanted to acquire 100 of them, but alas, like most nifty new technology, was too expensive. The gun could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds. And when the creator was told that his pricing was waaay too high, he offered it to the English. They turned him down, too.
But think what could have happened if they didn't... say, that the Continental Congress decided to spring for them and they became an American icon of freedom. Or if the English had taken the offer... and used those guns in their colonization efforts around the world.
So, it's fair to say that the founding fathers knew that gun tech had evolved beyond the blunderbuss or typical muzzleloader. They knew, and gave Americans the right to own guns because they knew firsthand what a shitty government could do.
And when on considers that one founding father said this:
I think it's worth pondering a different solution for the root issue of gun violence in America.
When one considers that America has been at war for all of but 20 years of its existence, maybe that's a sign that we revere war a bit too much. Is it any wonder why we have such violence in this country?