There's only one reason why a government would want to regulate firearms: to control the populace.
A government that sincerely wanted to help the citizens would protect their rights, educate them, lead by example, and stay the hell out of the way of everything else (like money creation).
This is conjecture on your part until you back it up with something more. Please do so. Even if you were right, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the annual gun deaths in Japan? And finally, please compare and contrast competing theories, such as a nation's (its people's) interest in safety.
America is still the most free nation in the world, because of one thing and one thing only: the populace is armed, and many of them distrust governments at all levels (rightfully so).
M
By saying something like that you've just proven that you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what the word "free" or "freedom" actually means. Please learn your basics.
I stated earlier what my definition of freedom is. Yours may vary.
M
You definition is raping the word freedom, go find your own more suitable word with which you want to express what you mean. This is just misleading and giving you a free ride on the positive connotations the word freedom has, while you mean nothing of the sort.
Perhaps you misunderstood. The 2nd amendment is protects all other amendments. Without the government is free to walk over the people like every other government of the world. (China anyone?)
Do tell, what's your definition?
M
No no no, lets stick with you "definition" for a while. So far that 2nd amendment has done NOTHING to protect any of the other amendments, so I doubt that's actually the case, and I think it's in fact part of a pretty elaborate fantasy shared by many gun-owning Americans.
By your "definition" Somalia is probably the most free country in the world; guns are prolific and government is virtually non existed.