Here is the danger with the second amendment debate at this point in time, there are no good advocates, who truly understand the issues at hand. Over at the National Review we have some half-spineless humanoid making the argument for an armed citizenry resisting government tyranny. His writing is half-hearted and apologetic about supporting the view that, yes, a determined minority of gun owners could dispel a tyrannical government.
That doesn't help, in fact it undermines the whole concept of the Second Amendment. We really don't need some guy who sounds like he would be frightened at the sight of a 1911 laying on the table to argue the merits and utility of the Second Amendment. It was as if the duty had fallen to him, but that he didn't really buy any of it or support anything about it. Hey, National Review, maybe hire a competent writer with knowledge of the issues rather than pick on some spineless dolt to do the work.
The Second Amendment was never written to enable a sport like hunting or target shooting; it was written and understood from a deadly serious point of view about the security and nature of a free state. It was written to debilitate a tyrannical government and keep it in check until it could be overthrown. Nothing that has transpired in the 20th or 21st Centuries so far has refuted the utility or importance of the Second Amendment.
The means of self-defense in the hands of the citizenry simply and clearly define the difference between slaves and citizens. It has a huge impact on the internal sense of self, both in the individual and the government that would abuse him. Our National Review jellyfish took on the idea of the U.S. Military engaging a small, but determined band of rebellious citizens and recognized that it would be a greater ordeal than many think. He invoked the Afghanis as an example of a determined foe against a modern military force. Yes, that is a good example, but times that resistance by 10,000 and you have a better understanding of any conflict between gun owners and the U.S. Military.
Any real resistance in the United States would not really involve guns, so banning them is almost useless to deter the rebels. Nearly every vehicle runs on gasoline, very useful. Communications beyond cell phones and the internet have already been established. See, this has been coming for a long time and any serious counter to an act of a tyrannical government, such as removing the possibility of self-defense, has already been game-planned. Cities, where most of the command and control would come from and where masses of communists live, are incredibly easy to debilitate and even isolate. This isn't Kabul, people in America need electricity, food and fuel delivered to them or their life will be miserable, perhaps intolerable. So, how hard is it to disrupt electricity, food and fuel deliveries? Ask the UN operating in any African nation and they will tell you. The harder the government tries to stop these acts, the more forceful they are, the more converts they will make, basically proving the arguments of the gun owners.
The Second Amendment is special, not because it protects guns, (and this is where every collectivist/communist gets it wrong) but because its violation signals a government with the intention to oppress its people. While collectivists are completely fine with establishing a totalitarian state through which they intend to force their agenda on the rest of the population, a gun owner is typically an individualist who seeks self-competency and self-reliance and prefers a government determined by individuals. This complete divergence in thought is what will drive an ultimate civil war, not because it is desired, but because these established points of view go to the very heart of what it means to be an American. So, to give up one's weapons prior to this ultimate conflict, for the gun owner, is insanity. Simultaneously, it is to the collectivist's purpose to disarm the ultimate enemy. This is why it cannot happen without conflict.
The argument, then, comes down to: Will you become a collectivist and trust the state to protect you? The answer from gun owners and many others is NO. Gun owners are completely aware that huge strides have been taken in the direction of a totalitarian government already and disarmament would be the last straw. This is why none of these sensationalist mass shooting have an effect on their point of view. Mass shootings are statistical outcasts in a land where guns are used (CDC figures) some 250,000 times a year to deter crime, or frighten away an intruder. No matter how many times these mass shootings take place, the knowledge that gun ownership reduces crime and protects families cannot be dispelled by emotional arguments.
No matter how many mass shootings occur, when the solution is to follow the pattern of history that has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million unarmed, defenseless people, there is not much of an argument the collectivists can make to persuade them. Nor should there be.