you are conflating the responsible handling and storage of guns with the constitutional right to own guns.
Ownership of guns, I agree should be embraced by liberals, Ive thought that way myself.
However, the second amendment should not be without limits .
OK, here 's how I see it, now:
Originally, the Founders expected that it was likely that we 'd need
, because history teaches us
that human nature causes aggregations of political power.
The Author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson
believed that revolutions 'd be necessary every 20 years; (he said so).
The Founders wanted the Citizens to WIN
as thay 'd just finished winning against the English.
Accordingly, it was their vu that there r no limits on the 2nd Amendment, to include artillery and warships, etc.
I must confess, however grudgingly
that a pure, Originalist application of the unlimited 2nd Amendment
is not a viable alternative. From my contact with the public,
especially from reading their mail on a daily basis, I have come
to know for a fact
, that a statistically significant proportion of them
languish in varying states of mental ill-heath. If thay have access
to weapons of mass destruction, some of them eventually will USE
them on us,
in the spirit of Timothy McVeigh or of Atta and Laden.
Hence, I will accept an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
protecting only those weapons that can be borne upon the person:
bladed weapons, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns n submachineguns.
That is personal freedom as it was thru the early 1900s.
I think its important that you understand that each of "Us liberals"
buy into a selected batch of biases and beliefs, the list of which,
the Conservatives just accept pretty much in entirety and without thinking .