I never claimed it would be 100% effective, I was pointing out that saying we shouldn't have it because it wouldn't be 100% effective is not logical. So really, if you were paying attention, I was saying it won't be 100% effective but we should do it anyway because it will help.
As for your right to own a gun, I'm alright with that, unless you specifically want to own assault weapons, which is just crazy. Before you respond, here's my reasoning, simplified for your simple mind. Whatever is easy for your average joe to get will be easy for criminals to get. An AR for home defense is an accident waiting to happen, odds are your home will not be invaded by anything you need more than a couple shots to take down, because as many who oppose gun control will tell you most crimes committed using firearms are committed with handguns, not assault weapons. If you think you need an AR to fight against the tyranny of the government, one possibility is you expect to fight the military, in which case you are hopelessly outgunned anyway, not to mention that possibility depends on the military (made up of people like you and I) being alright with attacking their friends and families. The next possibility is civil war, in which case you're fighting your neighbors (probably even moreso than in the first civil war) and being able to own an AR yourself means so can they, so that doesn't really work out. After this handful of situations we have invasion by another country, which would also result in you being hopelessly outgunned. I'm probably missing some example, but you get where this is going, there's no real benefit to owning assault weapons.
The second amendment does not say you have a right to buy the biggest gun ever made just so you can imagine something else was that big, I'm sure if they knew what an effective killing tool firearms would turn into they would've been a bit more restrictive even then. Now, I respect the constitution and I think it's an important document that establishes certain basic rights, but even the folks who wrote it made it easy to change because they knew it wasn't perfect. I really think people need to stop pointing to a 200 year old document as if it's infallible. And I'm sure you'll shoot back and tell me how disrespectful it is to say that or how unpatriotic I'm being, but if you ask me that's backwards. The Constitution was never intended to be unalterable, that's why they created a process to allow changes to be made to it, it's only supposed to need a majority vote. And unlike the first amendment, that could realistically happen with the second.
Finally, let me tell you that as a gun owner myself, I don't think they need to take away all firearms and I don't think it'd ever happen, despite people saying requiring paperwork is the first step towards that. Where I live, paperwork has been required for as long as I can remember, and my first time filling it out I did make a mistake. I didn't go to jail, I was never charged or fined or even spoken to by the police. I had to fill the form out again. Wow! Huge hassle to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, right? If you do something stupid, like lie about a criminal conviction, it probably isn't an accident and I hope they do make a federal case out of it as well as keep you from owning a gun. As for your gun registry concerns, I fail to see the huge problem with a gun registry. I have a big problem with all of the other information the government seems to be collecting, such as yesterday's story about them saving all digital communications, but a national gun registry seems like a fantastic idea. If every recovered bullet could be compared to a database of bullets fired from guns prior to their sale, it'd make finding murder weapons much easier. They'd still need to actually find it and perform all the usual tests, but if they can quickly find the original purchaser it could speed things up.