In your argument you are acknowledging that not all citizens are entitled to a gun. Do you think that since the local and state government are responsible to regulate a gun that they will just go by the 2nd amendment and make guns available to every citizen that applies for a gun? One thing that you should be aware of is the fact that our constitutional rights are not absolute which means that they cannot cover us in certain instances and those categories of citizens that i covered are not eligible for guns. So regardless if the state or local government regulate gun policies, the regulation is so that guns do not fall in the wrong citizen's hands or that guns are not issued to citizens who may use it for the wrong purpose. Therefore, my conclusion again is that sole fact that not all citizens are entitled to gun.

The amendment did say "the right of the people" but like all other amendments, there is a limit to what it covers. It mentioned the right of the people but the U.S Supreme Court has interpreted this as the right of the people who were soldiers and served in the war to carry weapons for their own protection as this amendment was created in a time of war. The Court also agreed that because of the nature of this amendment and the time of its creation, all citizens are not entitled to guns. Just like we are not covered by the 4th amendment if there is evidence in plain view or the 1st amendment if there is any form of violent action or speech, there is a limit to what the 2nd amendment covers. If all citizens were entitled to a gun, don't you think that all citizens would have applied guns at the federal, state or local level?