Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[kandrathe]

... the main reason always mentioned for which people are supposed to be allowed to own guns, the 2nd amendment

... or in other words, the right of self defense.

... why would you then start to make your own interpretation of it like you wish.

I said, we don't. The courts do.

If 300 years ago a gun would give you some reasonable defense against your (or the British) government (what the 2nd amendment is all about),

...a single shot smooth bore musket -- requiring about a minute to reload. And, again, the 2nd amendment is not only about defending yourself from the government, but also just defending yourself.

...nowadays it doesn't. So if you say people should be allowed to self defend using arms you should not limit that to the same type of weapons they had 300 years ago. You should upgrade it to modern days standards.

First, who is to say it doesn't work. Look at Syria. Yes, the regime had tanks, missiles, war planes, etc. Eventually, the rebels with enough former regime military defectors, using small arms over took military bases and acquired the "Army" weapons needed. Had they been brandishing torches and pitchforks, the task would have been harder, or have failed. Second, we have updated to modern standards for small arms -- semi-automatic, accurate to 500 to 1500 yards, high velocity and more reliable. The principle point of the political experiment called the US is that it is the people who govern the people, and that our rights are innate and not given to us by the government. If (when) the government becomes so corrupted that it is no longer adhering to the Constitutional laws, then the citizens have the duty to overthrow such an illegitimate government. Peacefully, if possible.

-second; a society as a whole will become more dangerous when guns are widespread. So there will be more gun related deaths among 'good people' (if I am allowed to use an overisimplified American expression) Legal guns are safer for those who are among the top % of best shooters, but less safe for the rest of the population (among who kids).

On this, we agree. It is a fantasy dream or a nightmare depending on how you'd implement it. Even if all the 'good people' willingly forsook owning weapons through some pro-active campaign to stamp out violence, a certain minority of 'bad people' would still commit murders with guns. Most likely, it is about the same number of murders that are committed now. The nightmare scenario would be a government led ban on the ownership of weapons -- forcing the 'good people' to be bad, just as they did during prohibition.

So once more (hoping it is clear): If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is that allow people to wear arms in order to defend themselves from their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore.....the more weaponry evolves and becomes better, the more a citizen should be allowed to own if the 2nd amendment is what is important here.

if you struck from their government, a small fire arm will not do anymore. Then, agreed. But, also within the common sense boundaries of what is practical and normal in the society. In the US, machine guns were only banned in 1986. There were not an excessive number of machine guns bought, or used in crimes before 1986. So, why the ban? It was political theater, which at that time the NRA went along with to get changes made to the more restrictive 1968 federal gun control laws. What did work for these extraordinary weapons (machine guns), was that to own one, you needed to be registered and have your fingerprints on file with the ATF. Going back to 1934, there have been two recorded murders with legally owned machine guns, one by a police officer killing a police informant. Even in the heat of our ongoing drug war, about 1% of all homicide involves the use of illegally smuggled machine guns.

If you disagree but are in favor of owning guns (I am giving you the argument you could have used against me) you should change the 2nd amendment.

At this point, we don't really need to. The original intent is very clear, and the way it is written is intentionally vague about specifics. What it entails is that the citizens have an inalienable right to self defense, and that the federal government shall not disarm the citizens. This is now been reviewed by numerous judicial actions, creating a body of case law supporting the rights of citizens to defend themselves, and rejecting attempts by governments to disarm them. As technology changes, and the norms of what a reasonable weapon would be for a citizen to own changes, then the law still fits. For example, if we moved to hand held lasers, any ban on magazine capacity becomes pretty moot.