Large capacity magazines

[Corporate666]

56. I think the biggest problem is that the proposals are always reactionary and useless

I've been reading on here that we should ban the AR-15. That's like banning the Ford F-150 if someone used it to ram into a crowd of people. It just doesn't do any good.

Guns ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution, so effective bans through draconian measures like "bolt action only, one rifle per citizen, 1 year waiting period to buy, monthly inspections" or whatever are just effective bans. It's really no different than what Bush and others tried to do on abortion - like making the woman watch a video and be "counseled" before the procedure, and having a wait period and all that. It's just a way to try to implement an effective ban while smirking and saying "Ban? What ban? You're still allowed to do X!".

That sort of thing will never fly and is what causes gun rights supporters to dig in - because many/most of the proposals aren't about genuinely wanting to stop mass shootings, they're about just trying to do an end-run around the 2nd Amendment.

I think if an honest dialog could take place, effective legislation could be passed. But that would require both sides to agree to give AND take. And that would mean expanding gun rights in some areas while restricting them in others.

I've never in my life heard of anyone on either side proposing such a thing. It's always "we want X and that's that". I doubt there are many gun-control advocates on this site who would be in favor of expanding gun rights in some respects while curbing them in others.