I ask because I've noticed that, after the recent school shooting that involved an AR15 or similar rifle, a lot of 2nd Amendment supporters flipped out and dug their heels in anytime anyone so much as questioned the accessibility of such guns. They react to the suggestion of further restrictions or requirements as if it were a push for a complete ban and seizure; like there's no middle ground. I support the 2nd Amendment.
I grew up around guns (although I own none myself). Nothing wrong with guns for hunting, sporting, and self defense. However, the laws as they stand now are clearly not working, what with this mass shooting epidemic we have going on. It's easier for a kid to get an 'assault rifle' than it is for them to get a beer. When the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets were pretty much it, and they couldn't have taken into account the evolution of the firearm.
We require training, testing, and licencing for automobiles, but not for guns, and this wouldn't be denying anyone their right to bear arms. It would only ensure that they were stable and responsible enough to exercise said right. Unfettered access is to the 2nd Amendment is what yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is to the 1st Amendment.
I try to be realistic and pragmatic. Even if I didn't support the 2nd amendment, I know that a ban wouldn't work. It would be a logistical nightmare, the black market would be flooded, you would have Ruby Ridge style incidents all over the place, and just a very nasty political mess in general.
As for the idea that citizens need guns to protect itself from a tyrannical government, aside from being out gunned by the police/military, most people who preach this are ironically the ones most likely to vote a despot into power, so I don't have much confidence in that.