Here is when I bought my first gun

[appal_jack]

153. Until violent crime is 0 and holding...

Until violent crime is 0 and holding, a responsible citizen may choose to procure tools for self-defense. You, Nadin, might be comfortable with low odds of criminal assault, but others might not like that risk.

Also, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that transcends any given needs. So even after violent crime descends to 0, citizens will have the right to Keep & Bear magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns and rifles for hunting, target-shooting, or the simple joys of collecting interesting machinery. For more than a century, magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms have been considered well within the Second Amendment's purview. The DU'ers I respect least at present are those among us who are pretending that a change to this scope of the RKBA can or should be done via simple legislative action. That is nonsense: abrogating the Second Amendment should require the full process of a Constitutional Amendment.

The gun-grabbers (yes, if you want to deny Americans' right to own the most popular highest-selling sporting arms of the past few decades you are advocating the grabbing of guns - own the term or change your stance...) know full well that a repeal of the Second Amendment will never fly in the USA. For that reason, we Democrats should be exploring other options besides magazine or firearm bans for enhanced security: better mental health care, increased security at vulnerable targets, etc. But an end-run around the Second Amendment is not an honorable course of action. At best, it will provide security theater to people ignorant of Constitutional principles and firearms technology both. It could very well also provoke a horrible backlash against Democrats during the Congressional mid-term elections. This is not an outcome that I, an avid DU'er, desire; nor should it be an outcome desired by any DU'er.

-app