Saying something aloud doesn't make it true.

I keep seeing these same tropes in the gun-control debate, repeated as if they are true and relevant.  Todd Starnes repeats all three in rapid succession in his article entitled "Freedom, Tyranny and Granny's .38".  As the title suggests, Starnes believes that the only thing that stands between freedom and goverment tyranny is a gun.  I find this to be a sad commentary on what Starnes thinks of modern democracy--there are several institutions in place which are intended precisely to stand between freedom and tyranny: the voting booth, the Constitution, the system of checks and balances.  I don't feel the need to take guns of this list, but I find it strange that it would be not the first item on Starnes' list but the only item. 

As far as the first claim above--it is true that new gun legislation which criminalizes possession of an 'assault weapon' (however that is ultimately defined) or a large capacity magazine is not legislation that is specifically aimed at criminals, but neither is it specifically aimed at law-abiding gun owners.  Indeed, whether it is a good law or a bad one, it is aimed at all owners of such criminalized objects.  And as it turns out, most of the guns used in mass shooting in the last 30 years were obtained legally.

With regard to 'dismantling' the Constitution, the suggestion seems to be that any change to the Constitution equals 'dismantling'.  Nobody is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be removed altogether.  Rather, gun-control advocates are seeking to limit the rights afforded by the amendment.  If you object to any change to the Constitution, you might want to look up the word amendment.  Incidentally (and as I've repeated several times), many of your constitutional rights are limited, even that most fundamental right: speech.

The solution to this problem won't be easy, but it will be easier without all this static noise competing for our serious attention.