How do I counter the following specific anti gun-control argument convincingly?

Times change, the time that Amendment was written the founder saw the chance of Revolution being very high. So they wanted to keep people armed. But nowadays it's not practical when ya look at political circus.

The government can and does punish you for some harmful speech. (yelling fire in a crowded theater resulting in a panic with injury or death will get you jail time) The government under Bush attempted time and time again to stop the press from reporting what they new about the administration's illegal wiretapping. If the First amendment were no limited the government could never take action against the press.

And what about that - Bush claimed the right to wiretap anyone without a warrant - it that not a 'limit' on the 4th amendment. The indigent get a court appointed attorney if they are accused in a criminal matter, but is that 6th amendment right not limited by finances? The point being the 2nd amendment is simply not more sacrosanct than any of the others.

Few liberals want to see it repealed because it is an important right. But it is not any more an unlimited right than than the first amendment which despite the establishment of religious freedom would not require us to tolerate a religion which required human sacrifice. Being for reasonable gun control, for licensing, tracking or keeping military theater weapons out of the hands of private citizens is not being anti-gun.

It is being anti-criminal. It really is that simple.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.