Irrational? At the very least, isn't it widely known that the USA has a abnormally high rate of death by firearm to say, the Netherlands. At the very least, it's far from making things more save then more restricted countries. And in my book, only cold hard reason should have a influence on gun lawmaking. Emotion shouldn't have a place in this, especially if you take various human instincts into acount.
I might look for it tomorrow, but is there any well-checked study of instances where civillian guns actually managed to prove useful? Everyone is always using this argument, but when does the ''positive'' side of the right to own a firearm get put into real practice?
I always am noting the parallel between reading the bible literally, and trying to figure out what the founders wanted with everything. The constitution is brought up as a unchanging pillar of justice again and again.
This is not rational. A few rights like freedom of speech are no-brainers for the western world, and slowly increasing globally. But a lot of things are related to the sentiments of the time. I don't believe equal gender rights, or a ban on owing a slave were included. It's important in history, and there's genuine reason to celebrate it. But the founders are long gone. Laws should be made by the current living generation. A good constitution has a few barriers in place to prevent direct abuse. We go with needing a 2/3 majority that needs to be passed again 2/3 after the next election. But aside from that, most of the laws are neutral core rights. Some of them frequently clash. But most importantly, we focus or discussion mosty on the present age. You may take note of the founders, but why not make up your own path?