AbramIsaac wrote:I think another part of our reluctance to change anything about our gun laws in America is the fact that it's a right that is granted to us by our constitution. Some people look at it and say, "Well, these are incredibly sophisticated guns compared to what they had back then, there's no way they intended for people to have something like this" but it can be argued that the motivation for granting the populace the right to own guns is a security precaution. Some would argue that the founding fathers wanted the civilian population to have the ability to fight back against an oppressive government, in which case, it would make sense for us to not restrict gun rights very much.
Obviously, I'm not saying that we should ever do such a thing. An armed conflict with our own government would not only be a terrible thing, it would be ill-advised. Since we do have the most powerful military in the world, it would be stupid to think that some redneck with an AK-47 or an AR-15 would be able to hold off a helicopter or well-trained ground troops armed with grenades and M16's. Still, the argument stands that a well-armed citizenry is a deterrent against an overtly tyrannical government.
Personally, I'm not so sure about that argument. I don't have anything against bringing back the Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban, myself. Still, I think about what the writers of our constitution meant when they wrote that amendment, and I wonder what they would think of our current situation with gun violence, and whether or not it's worth it in order to keep that safeguard in place.
As far machine guns/automatics go, they are banned to most people in all practicality. You have to apply for a special permit from the ATF, it's a real pain in the ass. The criminals aren't the ones that are going to get that permit, so the full-auto weapons are already controlled well enough. The semi-auto AK-47s and AR-15s are the assault rifles.
I think that a restriction on high capacity magazines is a good place to start.
so fun to shoot
