The flaw in your logic lies with a basic understanding of the constitution. I'm guessing you're a millennial, I'm NOT saying that in a derogatory manner, just that very few have an understanding of it. I'm a Xennial, they suck too.

The problem is this: driving is a privilege, not a right. Whereas gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. The "free for all" has nothing to do with gun manufacturers, and everything to do with our rights and culture. I'll let you chew on that for a minute, but I'll end this part by saying perhaps a more accurate comparison is requiring training before issuance of a conceal-carry permit, which most states already do.

Citing the gun statistics or anecdotes from Switzerland is similar to citing health care statistics or anecdotes from Nordic or other oft cited northern European countries.

These countries are largely homogenous in their ethnic and demographic makeup, i think the Swiss are beginning to open up their borders to outsiders, but it's still largely white, Swiss or European people.

Beyond demographics just 40 or 50 years ago, students used to bring rifles to school to participate in shooting competitions and competitive shooting leagues. This was common even in large cities such as NYC. I've seen old photos of kids with rifles under their desks, like back packs are today.

Gun ownership was actually more prevalent in the past. Now you can be in many cities and meet people who've never seen a firearm, let alone own one. Fewer people own more guns now.

But for all our problems, school shootings and mass shootings are pretty low. So low in fact data analysts have been adapting what is considered a mass shooting/school shooting to help the cause.

So what's changed from 60/70 years ago? This is a far better question. A lot of people like to cite demographics, or mental health. I tend to think of these as scapegoats for the lazy and uninformed (although i do think there are serious and as of yet unseen problems with the widespread use of anti depressants and other psychotropic drugs in the U.S., far worse than the opioid "epidemic").

I don't think a majority of the states would ratify the constitution today. The first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment seem anathema to what a majority of people want or believe today, on the left and the right. No offense, but i think comparing/confusing the right to own a gun and defend yourself from your government to the privilege of driving a car is prima facie example of this.

Further, when i read the declaration of independence, which were the reasons for this country and our constitution, i see very little in similarities between the people that wrote that document and the people that inhabit the country today.

The U.S. was great not because of our constitution, but because of the underlying ideals and beliefs of it's people and recognition of what/who people are. The govt can lock up the constitution in a safe at Fort Knox, but when the DOI no longer represents the beliefs of the people, you might as well wipe you're ass with it, that would be a better use of the paper. And i think we are quickly approaching the time where they will remove what's left of the constitution because the people want the safety and security that only the government can provide them. In similar fashion as speech, have all the free speech you want just have it in particular zones and absolutely no hate speech.

It's disheartening, but I'm reminded of the quote, "this constitution is meant for a moral and religious people, wholly unfit for any other". And for the people now to make a new constitution, i have no doubt it will be better and will represent the people quite well.