I'm usually pro gun-rights, though with reasonable restrictions. I have two issues with your comment though.

First, not human right, American right. It'd be such a weird thing to say it's a human right to own firearms when they're a pretty modern thing, meanwhile shelter, food, and water are not.

Second, the second amendment is invalid. It's based on an assumption that isn't true anymore "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A standing professional army was not the norm of the time and it wasn't expected that the newly form small US would have one. It was expected we would have to rely on a citizen militia for defence. I know what the courts have ruled, but they ignore this first section. Since the first assumption isn't true, the following assertion must be invalid. IANAL but I have no idea how it's made it through the courts so long without this being shown.