It’s completely unbelievable to me that anyone could believe that this is reasonable collateral damage for the affording civilians the privilege to own assault rifles.
You could certainly pass a new assault weapons ban (
and I believe they should) that would be Constitutional, in my opinion. I just don't see why these are things civilians need to own. You sure don't
need them for self-defence or hunting.
This is one pretty rare issue where I genuinely don’t see a reasonable “other side”.
While I don't necessarily agree them, I can certainly see the arguments the "other side" (i.e. owners of assault weapons and those who believe in the right to own them) would make.
First, they'd tell you that owning their assault weapon is a right, not a privilege. I disagree with this, I think even post Heller that you can regulate assault weapons, but that's the first argument their side would make.
They'd also point out that the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the US is carried out by hand guns, not assault weapons, and that in fact the number of homicides carried out by rifles of all kinds is
statistically insignificant. They'd point out that most (if not all) of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent history
would not have been prevented by any version of a serious assault weapons ban that's been proposed. They'd point out that the deadliest school shooting in American history (VA Tech) was done with hand guns. They'd point out that most mass shootings are planned weeks or months in advance, and someone doing such careful planning can get ahold of a weapon if they want, no matter what the laws.
They'd say, correctly, that the overwhelming majority of assault weapons owners are law abiding, and of the millions and millions of assault weapons that are out there, only a handful have been used in the commission of a crime. So why, they'd ask, are you going after assault weapons and not handguns, when the latter are the ones doing almost all the killing? They'd ask if you want to solve the problem, why are you proposing things that
won't solve the problem?
As I said,
I'm not saying I agree with all this. I'm putting that in bold because someone will come along and inevitably say "why do you support school shootings" or similar rubbish (not saying you, I know you're not prone to irrational outbursts Dig). I can make all the arguments on the gun control side also. In fact I don't think there's anything in Heller that prevents a new assault weapons ban. I also think there are other things you can do post-Heller that are still Constitutional....things like fixing the background check system, and gun violence protective orders, something most people have never heard of but a few states have tried that might stop at least the unstable from purchasing a gun (legally, anyway). And yes, an assault weapons ban, by all means.
I don't think your Second Amendment is worth killing or dying for. I think you should repeal it and get rid of most of the guns. But the reality is, in a post-Heller world, where the SCOTUS has said that owning a gun in an individual right protected under the Constitution, there's only so much you can do. That doesn't mean you don't do it. But I think pols should be honest with Americans about the limits to what can be done legislatively, starting with the Parkland survivors.