From a more abstract point of view...

As a US Citizen, I believe in the Constitution as a source of Law. As it was written. The Constitution is not a living document in the sense of different interpretations. It is a living document in the sense that WE THE PEOPLE may amend it, or change it, as we see fit through due process. The original US Constitution and the Amendments passed, do not restrict the people, but restrict and define what the government can and cannot do.

If all men are created equal - a concept I think we can all agree on - then the ultimate rights in this world are individual rights. Governments have, and always will have, the propensity for evil because people must serve in government. Government service, by definition, extends to the government-employed individual a certain amount of authority - or power, if you will. The saying is that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. This saying is popular because it is accurate.

Therefore, I believe the only restrictions any government has the right to impose on the individual are restrictions on the individual to do harm to another individual. In a very broad definition, the methods of doing harm are:
- harm by theft, or stealing.
- harm by death, or killing.
- harm by destruction.
I know it is a broad brush, but these three definitions can be understood to contain any sort of harm that an individual may inflict on another - intended or unintended.

In all other aspects of the law, the punishment and limitations revolve around the action that causes harm. Never the device - except when it comes to guns (and in limited cases with illegal drugs). This is because inanimate objects cannot harm a person. Only the actions of a person, with or without an object, can harm. Included in the definition of "actions" would be negligence and the failure to act as a reasonable person would act.
Examples:
- Meth (a drug) cannot, by itself, case harm. To cause harm the drug must be ingested.
- A knife cannot cause harm. It would require the action of a person to cause harm with the knife.
- A car cannot by itself cause harm. It would take the action of a person to cause harm with a car.
- A gun by itself cannot cause harm. It requires the action of a person to cause the gun to discharge.

So from this we can see that the action of harming another is what should be restricted and punished. Not the inanimate object. We do not (and should not) restrict the ownership of cars, nor the consumption of alcohol. However, we do (and should) restrict the operation of a motor vehicle while alcohol is being consumed or immediately after alcohol has been consumed (DUI). Let us as a world and as the people of the world restrict criminal activity and punish those criminals. It is pointless to restrict the objects the criminals use in their crimes.

Further, since the power of being in government corrupts, either overtly (wanting to become powerful - like a dictator) or covertly (wanting to do something to gain more votes to be re-elected and continue to have the power); then we should understand that the government cannot inherently set appropriate standards as to who may and may not do something, or own something. Every conceivable restriction would be inherently unfair to certain otherwise-"deserving" individuals.

Therefore, I do not trust any government to tell any individual who can and cannot own firearms. This includes especially those individuals and governments who say we should only allow law-enforcement or the military to have firearms. Particularly when those law enforcement and military persons are under the authority of that controlling force of government.

Additionally, it is worthy of mention that gun control here in the US started as a result of racism - one of the ugliest forms of harming other human beings. Link to my thoughts on this. I am not saying that all gun control is inherently racist, but what I am saying is that wanting to force another human to live in circumstances against their will is one of the fundamental ugly truths of racism, and it is shared by the gun control movement, as well as tyrannical leaderships everywhere. Chew on that one, then tell me you have a good reason to tell another person how they should live.

And that is my final point on this topic - the ability to force another to live a certain way. It is not right. There is a big difference between the restrictions we need to have about causing harm to others, and simply forcing our will on others in "non-harmful" ways. To ensure mutual welfare, we need restrictions on harming others. We do not need restrictions on others. I don't want to tell another person whether they must or must not purchase any inanimate object. I have no right to, either. And what's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander.