[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I agree. "... shall not be infringed" is a very simple statement. It's just too bad that more people can't understand plain English.

I am basically in the "no regulation" camp, because regulation = infringement. I also agree that if we can't trust some people to be on the streets with guns, those people probably should not be allowed out on the streets. Since there are a LOT of convicted felons out on the streets, either on parole or having completed their sentences, who have guns they are not legally allowed to have, the law saying they can't buy or possess guns obviously doesn't work. If something doesn't work, it's illogical to continue pushing it. Try something else.

Further, IF there are going to be laws about guns, why not restrict what can be done with a gun, rather than who can own one? Logically, if a 45-year old former bookkeeper was sent to prison for embezzling $10,000 from her former employer, that was a "white collar" crime involving no physical injury to anyone. But ... she's a felon, and prohibited from ever touching a firearm. If she buys (or is given) a pocket pistol illegally and carries it in her purse for the next 45 years without ever shooting, threatening, or robbing anyone -- who cares? Who has been hurt by her flagrant disregard for the law?

So why not just focus on making it illegal to do bad things with guns, like rob banks and commit murders, and stuff like that?

That sounds great in theory, but consider that aggravated rape is usually not a life sentence. It flies in the face of logic that a convicted aggravated rapist should be able to buy a gun like any good citizen, even if he CAN get one illegally.

"shall not be abridged" is rhetorically powerful, but will almost certainly never be the law again. The current controlling case law (Heller & McDonald) explicitly states some regulation is permissible. That will probably be the reality for a long time.