There was no National Guard at the time the Bill of Rights was written. "Militia" has been defined as all able-bodied citizens able to take up arms. "Well-regulated" means to be trained and skilled in the use of such.
As for confiscation...
I watched the video, and I know some people feel it's makes them feel defenceless and vulnerable. But I'm sorry, this tone of argument feels like a fear-mongering tactic of pushing extremes. Particularly this video as it just constantly addresses the feeling of vulnerability as though a gun is the only means of protection, nothing about the police services, rise in crime, etc.
The last message this youtube says is 'gun owners in australia told me back in 1998 when I was there that the unforgettable images of their guns confiscated by the government should be a wake-up call to all of us to never to never surrender our rights, because once their gone you'll never get them back.'
A Final image of that video is a slide link of NRA asking people to join them.
This link is dated, that quote in particular is referencing a personal experience dated nearly two decades ago. The link is biased because it's the NRA and the first thing this link says is that Clinton is making them the enemy so of course its going to manipulate its words to scare people.
Also the choice of quote Clinton says 'The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds and thousands of guns...<Scene Change>...They believed and I think the evidence supports them that by offering to buy back those guns they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future...<Scene Change>...So I think that's worth considering.' I'm not entirely sure what the buy back system is but I would agree that availability of automatic weapons is and issue.
David Leyonhjelm The strongest voice for gun owners in Australia's parlament and a target shooter himself uses phrases like Phrases like 'were a nation of victims' and argues nothing has changed.
According to the Senate there has been no change only that it has gotten worse.http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deathshttp://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia
I have found a gun control website that has done research based on the University of Sydney and funded by UNODA(united nations office for disarmament affairs (https://www.un.org/disarmament/UNSCAR/
)). In 1996 total number of gun deaths were 536, in 1998 total number of gun death were 312. The information is two years out of date but according to 2014 gun deaths are 230.
Here is also a chart on the UK http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
This one starts at 247 in 1996 to 146 in 2011 (which was the same year as the London Riot)
Here is another chart for mass shootings http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359
Although the highest fatality rate is in Norway by a single mass shooting killing 63, aside form the fact that this incident tallied from explosive considering he blew up Oslo’s government building, so that was a mass kill but not primarily from guns. Also if you look at the per 100,000 citizens
Denmark - 5.084 million (2013)
Finland - 5.439 million (2013)
Switzerland - 8.081 million (2013)
United States - 318.9 million (2014)
In this context although the first countries have a higher fatality rate in the ratio, it's a single country compared to a union of 50 states so in that aspect it's not quite right.
I would consider 'Trolley problem' in these situations. I don't believe there is a system or law at the moment, in the past or the future that has guaranteed complete and total safety, security and peace of their entire citizens, that includes gun control and freedom to bare arms. I do believe however we are getting better and closer into forming a safer, more secure and a more diverse society, more so in some places than others. I use the term 'Trolley problem' because crime will never go away. One could argue having a gun at a near site location would lower your chances of getting kill, another would argue the restraint of accessibility would lower the chances of death, either side will still have death tolls.
I am starting to see a pattern arise though from people, that there is a distrust of their government, and the protection services whether it be experience, fear or like the customer pride. What I am seeing though through my eyes that that people are wanting guns to be able to put the law in their hands and have their morals become their compass, for that reason I am against gun controls, because I do not believe at all that the majority of any citizen has the tranquillity of thought to not shoot to kill either deliberately or by accident. The same argument can be said to some criminals to who are again acting out in distrust to the law and government to the point of being outside it, and yet again do not have a clear mind.To people who support guns excluding people who have done this already, what in your eyes needs to change
? Because the answer is not freedom of guns, so what form of control do you want and how? is it intellectual in a form of extensive training that must be attended fully and passed with unbiased judgement and agreement? is it medical in the form of character screening for behaviour that may result in violence, unstable moods or suspiciousness that may result in aggression and into violence? for myself I choose accessibility by removing the supplier, and for the argument of wanting to protect your family and friends, I say join the watchdog and connect with your community, that is a much wider net than a weapon can do, and if that is not enough for you, then join the police or armed forced. If protection means allot to you then train for it, just own a gun does not mean you are protecting anyone.
Finally because I think I keep sucking myself into this debate. This debate can go on forever with lobbing the endless digital supply of data and charts and trying to turn arguments back on each other. So simply what do you want in regards to Gun violence, what is your ideal way of prevent gun violence and why, and finally how would you implement it so it would be effective in your view and would minimally (or preferably not) have holes that are exercised by the public.
@Kobuk - also I think COP means Constable On Patrol, least that is what I am getting on google, i think you said earlier that it meant citizen on patrol