Ifwecouldjust wrote:
Your argument is correct and asking America to change the constitution would be like mission impossible...but that is the point that the NRA keep taking you back to. Every time some one shouts Gun control their response will always be the 'Constitution gives us the right to bear arms'.
Believe it or not, it wasn’t until a few years ago that this was actually really codified by Scalia’s Majority Opinion. That said, restrictions are clearly allowed, as even Scalia realized. Therein lies the solution, but therein lies the pushback. No-one seriously believes 2A gets repealed.
Maybe the focus should be 'We agree that everyone has the right to bear arms however they shouldn't be able to purchase military attack style weapons capable of firing more than 900 rounds per minute (AR-15)'
You have fallen into a simple trap there. You have picked a sliver of the discussion (an altered AR-15 that is fitted with larger magazines) that negates the salient point. 900 rounds per minute requires two things: a bump stock and a 900 round magazine! A bump stock may soon be outlawed, because I think most people didn’t know they existed and now one has been used to basic turn a semi-automatic into an effectively automatic weapon, but I know of no 900 round magazines. I do know of 100 round AR drum magazines.
The other trap is the “military attack style” description. It is one of the things that makes gun regulation so difficult. Everyone believes semi auto guns are here to stay. Those “military attack style” words are incendiary to some people, because they are a personal description designed to describe the cosmetic appearance, which is meaningless. At its heart, it is simply a semi-automatic handgun with a stock and a longer barrel. This is why AR-15s are so difficult to legislate against. Whatever cosmetic thing you change, an “AR-16” pops up slightly different in appearance, but with no change to its lethality whatsoever. It is toothless legislation.
So maybe it should be about controlling what people can buy and also are they mentally capable
Agreed
I think its been pointed out that the number of children slaughtered at Sandy Hook was reduced because the shooter had to keep reloading (max of 10 bullets per clip) and on one occasion 11 children managed to get out of the class room whilst that was happening
That must have been a handgun, but even a regular handgun can hold 13-15 rounds. Mine hold 12 in the magazine and one in the chamber (13), so it wouldn’t be a fruitless fight to get anything less than about 15-20 rounds banned. Bought even the mention of that word, if such legislation were floated, would mean they would fly off the shelves, because the history of gun control is grandfathering of weapons already in circulation. You can actually still buy a FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle, but it has to have been manufactured before 1986.That means such weapons are very expensive, but available to those who really want them!
Many people believed that Sandy Hook would change things, but trying to enact new laws that would have stopped that event from happening were already in place! He was a young man who was troubled and stole his mother’s guns. They lived in a semi rural area, where guns are common, and his mother would still pass any background check today and those weapons are still legal.
As one of the NRA talking points makes clear, and it is hard to refute, usually the laws in place would stop the people who have the guns from owning them....if we knew they were crazy when they went and bought them. Alas, just as happened in Sandy Hook, it was someone getting already illegal access to legal guns caused the problem...and as the NRA says, “You can’t fix crazy!”
I am totally in favor of much stricter legislation for ownership, registration of ALL guns and licensing of owners. The “R” word is a serious “No way!” from the NRA and their supporters.
