It's that you can only do so much and when your "fixes" don't actually accomplish anything it's unwise to proceed. It's a Goddamn civil right that's not supposed to be infringed upon.
Feasible that there's existing legislation enacted under the guise of "fixing" gun violence? There's literally thousands of laws on the books in America. Apparently what's not true is those past measures being effective enough such that we don't have to continue down the slippery slope.
Defense is the purpose for sure. But let's not confuse defense with service. In the plainest terms possible, it says the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people. No idea what you mean by false equivalency here, but it lacks all reason to say people have a right to defend themselves but then to disallow the common tool that most effectively lets the weak and infirmed fight off the strong. Lastly, the word is "arms" and firearms are certainly a sub-category of that. The right to keep in bear logically includes a choice. Takes a tremendous amount of ignorance to deny that some weapons are better suited in different situations.
I threw the second amendment wording in because it makes for an easy reference for me when im responding. I don't think I'm learning you up with my cut paste job.
Ignore the false equivalency comment, I was distracted as I was leaving my house and just trying to get the post out and I'm not sure where I was going with that(I still rock a flip phone so there's no forums on the go for me).
Look man, I can't name you an actual limiting gun law off the top of my head, so it sounds feasible. That word not strong enough for you? I was asking for examples but I'll concede the point anyways.
For sure some weapons are better suited to different situations. Home defense, probably a shotgun, wandering around a pistol. Long rifles for taking something at a distance. And in my opinion an ar type weapon for going on the offensive.
I'm not for taking guns, but if something isn't done I think that crowd will gain a stronger foothold.
You're right that the purpose in passing a law shouldn't be to make it LOOK like something is being done. And if a law is ineffective there is no real reason to keep it on the books. But if the attempted laws are ineffectual the stakes will keep being raised in what is attempted to be passed. If we don't continue down the "slippery slope" what way do we go? I'm not arguing for a slope but asking for a suggestion.
What type of laws do you think would be effective?
Are the bullets for personal defense weapons the same as for a more offensively designed weapon? My understanding of a country like Switzerland is that they limit access to ammunition. Maybe that's a better way to go about it? Its easy to shoot down ideas but you gotta throw some out yourself. If one side of the argument can't trust the other to take their concerns into account you have the two sides in competition instead of working towards a common goal.
I've already said I don't worry about the second amendment from a personal protection point of view. In my reading of it it is national defense based. But I know a whole lot of people do worry about it from that angle so Im all ears. But don't forget that amendments can be repealed and amended. My fear is that if the current violence problem, exacerbated by guns, isn't curbed that could be the way of the second. And I think it's there for something much more important than an individual here or there. Much the same way that I accept that guns in our population mean some people will be shot.
PS. If I could eliminate "arms" from our civilian population, I wouldn't.
Edited for clariry
