So in terms of the 2nd amendment - it was interpreted very differently than today for the first couple centuries of our country. It wasn't until the 70s or so (sorry, don't have the reference handy for exact date) when the NRA got taken over by a more militant group of people that the push was on to have the courts interpret it as any gun, any time and have less emphasis on the militia portion.
As a side note, in Norway, "To own a gun in Norway, one must document a use for the gun. By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting, in that order. Other needs can include special guard duties or self-defence, but the first is rare unless the person shows identification confirming that he or she is a trained guard or member of a law-enforcement agency and the second is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership." and there are various training requirements and storage laws are strict. A lot of people have guns, but they don't seem to be used in crimes as much as ours are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway
At any rate, would the govt confiscate some guns? As someone mentioned, the govt has done a lot of unsavory things - it was 007 I believe who said:
Just like the federal government will never seize peoples property without a warrant, it'll never detain citizens without trial or evidence, it will never subject you to surveillance without evidence or cause. No the government will always be loving and honest forever and ever.
Absolutely the govt has overstepped the bounds. But, unlike in 1776, a group of citizens with guns will NOT overthrow the govt. As we have seen, when the govt has done those things - even to armed groups - guess what? govt wins.
So I put my faith in our country - in the court system, in the legal system, in the power of the vote. I actually think we have a good strong democracy. I don't know why it seems as though the NRA and its ilk only trust the 2nd amendment and not the rest of the constitution. Granted, they certainly use and abuse representative govt! But the laws at this time allow them to do that.
We have changed the constitution before; the 2nd amendment at this point is a bit of an archaic hangover that the gun rights people have seized on and stretched way further than I think most of us expected. So be it. At this point, it will be hard to change. (Some would probably say the 14th amendment has also been stretched further than anticipated, but I do like that one. )
One of the people on here (I don't remember the name) at least took their argument to the logical conclusion and said basically yes, citizens should have granades and anti-ballistic missiles, etc. I won't want to live in that kind of world, personally. But that is an honest extension of the "no limits in the 2nd amendment" argument.
Obviously, I disagree. I think there should be limits (like in California). I think we should study the cause of gun violence. I think we should fund mental health more and we should finance education and training on safe gun handling and - very important - safe gun storage. I think we should work on technologies that ensure the gun is only used by its owner. None of these will keep people from having guns. None of these will stop all murders. But together, I think they will reduce the number of deaths.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html