What fascinates me about people who insist the Second Amendment gives them a right to bear military weapons at brunch is how often they ignore what arms meant. Or the bit about a well regulated militia. Or that a standing permanent military force was never intended to exist alongside that militia. The Second Amendment was written in the era of cannons, muskets & flintlock pistols. No one could have envisioned 300 round bursts, much less the 1200 to 1500 rounds a minute that early Tommy guns were capable of firing. I won’t even get into rocket launchers or grenades. Your right to bear arms was never intended for this level of weaponry.
Sensible gun control that recognizes the intent of the 2nd Amendment would limit the number & the capabilities of weapons in a home. The ship sailed on the US giving up guns decades ago. Okay I can accept that we won’t do as Australia did and surrender every weapon to a mass buyback. After all the US has 300 million guns, not the 3 million or so estimated to be in civilian hands in Australia. So, how about limiting the number per household & restricting the size of magazines nationwide?
Maybe instead of asking some half-assed compromise solution every single time there is a tragedy, pretty please, Americans should start talking about repealing that dumb amendment of yours.
If you ask 10 you don’t get 10. You get (maybe) 1.
Start asking for 100.
Learn from the GOP.
There are 300 million guns in America. How about instead of ignoring logistics you recognize how actual changes happen? No? Okay, then shut the hell up.
Reblogged this on The Monster's Ink.