From the people I've talked to around here, (neighbours, friends, co-workers, etc.) who are most opposed to gun control, the one argument I seem to hear most often is: "The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from their own government."
I think most Americans (myself not excluded) have a pretty serious mistrust of our government in general.
ANY attempt at controlling the sale,ownership,use,etc of guns is seen as an attempt to disarm the citizenry (they just wanna take away our guns!) It's very much a "slippery slope" mentality. Politicians who offer even the most meager, sensible restrictions on firearms are generally going to be seen as power-hungry "commies" who want to control us, destroy our freedom, turn us all into pets, or whatever.
So they see their right to own a few assault rifles as their defence against tyranny. I have tried telling several
of these people that the government has tanks, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, nuclear missiles, drones, a whole giant military, etc. but somehow all
of them seem to think that its totally reasonable to believe that a bunch of civilians owning ak-47s is somehow crucial to preserving, or restoring our freedom against tyranny.
As for myself, I would love to have an AK-47, a Makarov pistol, and a few other neat guns (can't afford them) but I don't pretend any of that stuff is going to save my ass if the U.S. Gov't, or even the local police, decide that I am an enemy. I believe that our best defence against tyranny is not the 2nd Amendment, but the FIRST Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Ame ... ution#Text
The First Amendment recognizes freedom of the Press, freedom of Speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the Government. Without the right of Free Speech, we have not the right to ask for any other. And without the right to share knowledge, to communicate, to report what is going on, how would we know what to ask for anyway?
As for the Freedom of Religion, I think that in the context of it's inclusion in the 1st Amendment, it can be interpreted broadly today as saying "the government has no right to tell you what to believe." Any religion can surely have a powerful influence on the minds of those who adhere to its practice, to the point where quite often reason and logic may be ignored in favor of faith. The idea of a government establishing an official state religion would certainly represent an attempt at controlling the beliefs of the populace, or at the very least, recognizing certain beliefs over others.