10-19-2015, 12:58 AM
(10-18-2015, 07:45 PM)afraidforallofus Wrote: I agree with Hairofthedog. Everyone can carry arms. One muzzle-loading flintlock musket each. That'll put an end to the massacres. The authors of the constitution couldn't have imagined rapid-fire weapons.
You don't agree with me if you think everyone can carry arms of some kind. That's not my stance.
As I said, I think that stricter and more efficient regulations to determine who is qualified to bear arms is key to respecting the constitutional right while also reducing gun violence, including mass shootings.
Guns are not banned from citizens in Australia, the UK, Canada, nor Switzerland. However, they are better regulated in those countries and there is less gun violence as compared to the U.S. (though you all still struggle with illegal trafficking and such).
In my opinion, both the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the U.S. System allow for modern application of constitutional rights in most cases. Such is exemplified by how free speech rights remain guaranteed to all US citizens in modern society, even though the founding fathers could also never have envisioned the Internet, electronic pornography, and other modern means of communication.
The problem in getting smart gun regulations passed into law in the U.S. lies with the immense power that the gun lobby holds within the political system, in my view. The gun lobby has a vested interest in maximizing the number of guns in circulation.
I see the gun lobby being challenged and countered more strongly than it has been in the recent past. And, I think that stricter and more efficient regulations and enforcement, and thus less gun violence - including fewer mass murders, is on the horizon in the U.S.
It's not an all or nothing proposition for me.