There is a difference between a right and the ability to exercise that right.
Of course. But you're still missing the point. You need to be able to justify your right from a philosophical perspective before you can expect me to endorse it. Since you brought up Rosa Parks elsewhere: that black people should have the same rights as white people was, at some point, not self-evident. As a matter of fact, it took about 100 years of discussion and violence to make that seem self-evident in retrospect. You don't get to short-circuit the discussion about the right to bear arms with a "because we're born with it". Either you can support the notion, or you can keep shouting in the desert.
"it is already against the law to do X and people are ignoring the law and doing X anyway, so adding another law to make X illegal won't solve the problem"
It's easy to argue against a point neither I nor anyone else is making, isn't it? There are two ways to "add law" to a problem. You can make the penalties harsher, or you can make certain aspects of a problem illegal that are currently legal. Like, I don't know, making it illegal to sell a gun privately without a background check. Both add laws, but are certainly more nuanced then "it just makes x illegal again".
And yet every gun control advocate is wishing that the reality of guns would go away
Again, I think you might want to stop with the strawmen. It's really, really hard to take you seriously.
The guy who steals a gun and goes to a school to shoot the defenseless children there is already breaking more than one law, of both man and God.
The guy stole guns from his mother who kept them barely secured. Why are guns the only dangerous tool that people can just leave lying about? You can't leave TNT out on a front porch, and you can't leave uranium lying around. There are plenty of ways to make the problem of people illegally acquiring guns harder. What you're doing is to argue that because there is nothing that will fix the problem 100%, there's no point in even reducing the problem.
And, like I said, nobody is arguing in support of making it easy to kill a roomful of children.
Ok, fair enough. So I'd like two to see two things from you:
1) What is it about semi-automatic guns that is so important that mass-killings (which at this point are so frequent that I don't even blink an eye at them - then again, it might have to do with the fact that I live near Oakland) are a valid trade-off?
2) If not via gun-control, how do you propose to approach the problem of gun homicides?