General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! [View all]CTyankee
(63,970 posts)of spewing bullets quickly is what most people think of in terms of protecting their homes and families. The home invader is not typically a group of marauders with fire power so intense that you have to match it. And, of course, hunting doesn't require that either. But those are the mainstays of the argument over the 2nd amendment and Heller. Sports shooting is a bit different, but can't guns that fire more rapidly be limited to gun ranges where shooters can keep them under lock and key?
I think we have to remember that all of the richer, better developed countries that limit access to what we would refer to as "assault weapons" have more safety and lower homicide and suicide rates. Let's look at Norway where they have a gun loving population for starters.
As for the politics, it looks like the Administration is going full bore (sorry about the pun) on rallying the general public who want some sensible regulation. It won't be easy and it won't be fast. But that is no reason to throw up our hands and give up. Back in the 1950s I didn't think we'd get as far as we got on civil rights, and a lot of people were beaten up and murdered in that struggle. I've lived thru change in my lifetime...it can happen...