The pot has been stirring for 18 pages. I wanted to read all of the comments, so here I am a good hour later. My answer to the survey question is yes. But getting this question to "where the rubber meets the road," is another matter. There are so many issues to keep in account for a yes answer to become reality.
For starters, it's a trap to say that any restrictions are anti-second amendment. Yes, the world is full of slippery slopes, but to set up an arguement where every other system in the country must be subserviant to an unrestricted second amendment (though even that definition has varied over the 18 pages!) is unrealistic, if not impossible. Some of the posts, including a few by midnight I recall, take greater effort at capturing the original purpose of the second amendment, and then applying it further.
Should some of these other systems change in a way that respects a less restricted second amendment? Yes. Will they? Doubtful. Doing this state by state seems to be the most effective way at this time. Another poster made good mention of how things, which now result in greater resrictions on guns and gun rights, were dealt with differently in and around the 18th and 19th century. I believe this to be true. Regulation is a double edged sword, but to make the statement that it should not apply to one thing, but apply to others creates problems.
