In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.
Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".
So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?
And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.
Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.
Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.
Every weapon ever made is designed for open warfare. Spestznaz made shovels into one of the most dangerous things ever carried into battle. Should we ban shovels?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0McQ-cQmUZA]Special Forces Shovel : Cold Steel Throwing Shovel - YouTube[/ame]
I have one of those shovels.
Never been that good at throwing it, though.