1: because it's part of the Constitution of the United States.

And maybe it should be amended to reflect the realities of the times. It
forms the basis of law, but itself is not immutable. Just saying it is a
right protected under the constitution is to hide behind what may be an
obsolete law and seemingly absolves the proponent of further reasoning and
questioning.

The Constitution is not immutable, but it is =very= well thought out, and changing it, especially in the manner to =remove= rights from the people, should not be done lightly. Our freedoms may =seem= obsolete, but the idea that we should have these
freedoms is not.

2: because it's one of our defenses against government going bad

So the right to bear arms is to serve and to protect the masses from a bad
government? [...] At
what point in time and by which mechanisms would these weapons serve as
protection against the government going bad? Will they serve as a deterrent
to politicians from voting and enacting laws that we do not like?...

That is one reason, yes. There are others (the "well regulated militia" referred to in the consititution, which would come in handy at 30,000 feet is another). And yes, they do serve as a deterrent against laws "we don't like", inasmuch as once we
are completely disarmed and at the mercy of law enforcement, it would be quite easy to promulgate and enforce all sorts of laws that are a bit problematic even now.

3: because gun control is another way of ensuring that we no longer need
to be responsible for our own actions; this helps destroy society from the
inside

As opposed to being a responsible society that is trying to weigh in balance
the pleasure of gun hobbies versus increased availability of guns to fall
into criminal`s hands or by their very possession, escalate a crime from one
level of violence to a completely different level? [tragic gun use dangers snipped]

Replace "guns" with "airplanes" and tell me what is so different about your stance and the stance of the TSA against private aircraft flying around willy nilly? Both aviation and gun ownership require responsibility, including the responsibility to
decide whether it is really a good idea to pull the gun on the intruder or to fly through a "thin" icing layer to make an approach as the weather goes down. Without an airplane, the tragic scene at the end of the runway would be avoided, as the
person would have used a car instead.

A free society is not one whose people are protected against itself. We argue for aviation freedoms (which are not protected in the consitution), why are gun freedoms (which are) different?

4: because law enforcement should not have too much power over us

So we should defend ourselves against the police by arming ourselves and
threatening armed conflict will serve as a deterrent to police abuse? So
you get pulled over by a bad cop for alleged speeding and you politely show
him your own shiny 357 Python and he`ll let you go? [...]

LOL! I wish! g

No, what happens is that with a populace that is disarmed and docile, it is much easier for laws to be passed, little by little, that eventually remove our ability to act as a free people. In an aviation context, it's like requiring VFR flight plans
for cross country flights at night over mountains... then all night flights, then all flights, then requiring prior approval and a squawk code for all flights, and eventually shutting down "unapproved" aviation.

On the other hand, I am not insensitive to the need to feel the sense of
protection. If I lived in the US, god forbid...

It's not about protection. It's about freedom... the freedom for =me= to decide what I want to do, rather than have some other entity decide what would be good for me, or good for society.

I see you're not from the US. Where are you from?

Jose
Note - though replied to r.a.student and r.a.piloting, I don't follow the student newsgroup