Personally, I see no reason why ordinary citizens should be able to possess military style assault weapons, the only purpose of which is to spray bullets at rapid fire to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible (and I say people — not much good for deer hunting, that is if you want to eat your prey).
I mean maybe the only reason would be to be prepared for that one day that you joined the local militia to defy the government. Some people read that necessity into the Second Amendment. I think it is a little more complicated than that — has more to do with concerns of a far different time when the nation was not even sure it needed to have a standing army and if so who would it be composed of — the king’s men (or the president’s men) or just common everyday people.
But now I understand that even Democrats in congress pushing for stricter gun control in the wake of the Orlando massacre are not choosing to go the route of an all-out assault rifle ban, rather they want to push for a more politically palatable stricter control, such as making sure folks on watch lists and no-fly lists or those with known mental problems can’t get them.
It is reported that the attacker in Orlando was on the FBI watch list but inexplicably bought an assault rifle legally.
(It gets worse. A gun store salesman said he reported suspicions of the attacker to the FBI days before the shooting. Obviously nothing was done.)
The thinking of the Democrats, and even a parent of the Sandy Hook massacre of school children who is a gun control advocate, is that it is better to go for something that has a chance with the NRA and gun enthusiasts in general. This way something might actually get done, otherwise you just have a polarizing debate and get nowhere.
Even that crazy Republican presumptive nominee said he was going to speak to the NRA about exceptions. But then again, he says anything that comes to mind at the moment.
Of course gun control does not solve the problem, it just helps deal with it.
In Britain a 41-year-old woman who was a rising star in that nation’s parliament was stabbed and shot to death on the street after meeting with constituents in the last few days. It is not known what the motive of the assassin was — he was crazy for sure. The victim was a proponent of Britain staying in the European Union while the polls there show the so-called Brexit movement (getting out of the EU) with an advantage ahead of a vote of the public on the matter. Also the assassin had neo-Nazi ties.
Britain has strict gun controls.
There is always potential danger for lawmakers even in civilized and essentially peaceful democracies. Our own Gabby Giffords, from Arizona, was shot and seriously and permanently wounded a few years ago while meeting with her constituents.
Maybe the careful strategy on gun control, that is trying to win over the gun enthusiasts, is the best one.
But as far as I am concerned, I see no reason to allow the free flow of military weapons in society.
I do understand the idea of keeping or carrying, say, a handgun, for personal protection, but that is problematic. I won’t go into all the ins and outs on that one, you can see them yourself.
Or maybe we all must have our own arsenal, including automatic hand guns and rifles, ready to engage in a firefight at a moment’s notice, whether in the home, on the street, in the library, at a back-to-school nights, or wherever. And if you do not see the absurdity in all that, then what is the use of me even writing anything? It would be like trying to talk sense to a Trump supporter.