The Deeper Meaning of the Second Amendment: How to Convince Left-leaning Folks that the Second Amendment is Good Using their Own Buzzwords and Values

The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech (and other forms of expression) because it is an extension of your natural right of Freedom of Thought: even if someone uses violence to physically stop your mouth so they don't have to listen to you any more, they still can't stop you thinking whatever you want as they can't get in your head.  Even if they imprison you they can't cow you and control you without your consent, the worst they can do is kill you.  So to protect your right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought, the Second Amendment protects the right to own weapons and use them in self-defense as that is a logically obvious facet of the Natural Right to defend yourself from those who would lay hands on you without your consent.

So when your friends and family who have been brainwashed by the mainstream media respond with a programmed response about "a reasonable, common sense reforms" and say something like "because guns are so dangerous you should have to pass a gun training class before you're allowed to buy one!" don't let yourself get lost in arguing over how dangerous guns are take their argument and run with it.   Say this: Well, let's compare our laws about gun ownership and self-defense to the exercising of other Natural Rights.  If you don't know what you're doing when you engage in the very dangerous activity of sexual intercourse you could be another Typhoid Mary spreading sickness that will harm hundreds or even thousands of people.  So do you think it should be illegal for you to have sex if you haven't passed a class on STDs and contraception and gotten licensed to engage in the very dangerous activity of sexual intercourse?  Why not?  Even after you're licensed to have (supposedly) "Safe Sex", should it still be illegal for you to actually reproduce until you pass a class on how to be a proper parent so you don't ruin your kids for life?  Why not?  If you're uncomfortable giving the government that kind of authority and control of yourself and our entire populace, why would you want to give the government control of your personal right to self-defense from violence against your person and our entire populace's right to defend itself from a tyrannical government?

Ultimately "But Guns are Dangerous!" is a red herring and waste of time because the question is not about how dangerous something is or isn't, the question is about personal autonomy and the role and authority of government.  The Constitution does not make it the job of the US government to teach you how to use your Natural Rights nor does it give the government the authority to limit your natural rights by mandating you can't use them until you take a class to be properly trained.  Life is full of risk, every day, all the time. It's on you as an individual to manage and navigate that risk for yourself and your family.  You do it every time you get in the car to drive to work or a movie: driving is one of the most dangerous things most Americans will ever do (besides have casual sex with a random they just met at a bar), but no one is on the news every night advocating for banning cars or making it illegal to have a hook after hitting the bar, so stop wasting time in pointless arguments about "reasonable gun control" and jump straight to the heart of the matter, eroding the second amendment is limiting the agency of individuals by preventing them from using force to defend themselves when they have refused to consent to other people's demands.