Suppose we momentarily accept the premise of the gun control advocate that guns being used in violent crime is sufficient justification for the government to forcibly remove them from the general population. Then we, of necessity, must arrive at the conclusion that since guns are used more frequently for defensive use than offensive use that the government has sufficient justification to force the general population to acquire, train themselves, and carry guns for self-defense.
The government did the analog of that by requiring, by law, that everyone obtain health insurance. So, by whatever constitutional loopholes they pushed Obamacare through the same loopholes should be available to push a similar package of gun laws through which demand you own and carry self-defense “insurance”.
Of course such laws would be immoral as well as illegal under the constitution—if the constitution were actually observed.