Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Polling is clear: Americans want gun control

The right to bear arms also refers to a well armed militia (before the US had a professional army), to protect against an England where the monarchy was far more influential than today's basically ceremonial role, and was instituted when guns took a minute to load. It's a lie that it's required now,

and has been bastardised far beyond its original purpose.

They're now little more than dick replacements.

How many of you gun owners ever stop and say a prayer of thanks to all those brave children who have sacrificed their lives for your right to own a gun?

The gun psychos control congress, so all we're left with is piecemeal legislation that hardly begins to well regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.

We need to ban assault weapons, establish a national registry for gun ownership, restrict the manufacturing of guns, and restrict the total number of owned guns per individual.

We already have over 20 million assault weapons on the streets of America.

And, to make them is also a job that isn't terribly difficult.

So, pass the legislation to stop sales and start getting g them off the streets.

assault weapons should be banned for the good of the general welfare.

If the argument is to arm people with assault weapons to counter criminals with assault weapons, then it doesn't make sense from a defense argument, e.g. home defense. It would just exacerbate an already bad situation because of the ridiculously high powered rounds that these weapons deliver.

The home defender would be just as likely as the criminal to shoot a bystander in the next room or next house. In that regard a shotgun is a much better weapon for home defense than an assault rifle.

Automatic weapons are already possessed by criminals who, by and large, use them against each other.

This reasoning doesn't address the fact that assault rifles are used by otherwise law abiding citizens who skip their chains and decide to go on mass shooting rampages.

The biggest potential danger is that the present, otherwise law abiding assault weapon keeping psychos would use deadly violence in protest against the regulation.

they've certainly bastardised the US 2nd(?) amendment far beyond any semblance of its original intention,

Look into why the 2ndA is there in the first place. it clearly refers to militias as arms of governments, not the individual right

that the gun zealot NRA and SCOttus twisted it into.

Whole lot of ssensible law enforcement want fewer gun loonies on the streets,

Personally, as it says there's to be no infringment at all on the ability to own or bear arms, I think people should be allowed to own ICBM's.......
...even if a person would otherwise be a 'school shooter'....or psychotic...or severely paranoid schizophrenic.
...if you support the literalness of the wording, then you would have to agree. Otherwise they got it wrong, or it is open to interpretation.

But...the right to bear arms is part of a sentence, with the primary qualifier being 'A well regulated militia'. Technically, according to the structure of English sentences - you would have to be part of the militia, and you would have to be well regulated, in order to have the right to own and bear arms.

The 2nd ammendment reads as a statement of logical progression (through the eyes of the people at the time it was written), introducing the Subject, the Reason, and the outcome. Structure of English, as follows:
A well regulated Militia
Subject introduced immediatedly - a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State
Reason introduced straight away for the well regulated militia
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The outcome (of the subject and the reason)
Ie. the outcome is bound to the subject, which is also bound to the reason.

The right to bear arms doesn't exist outside of 'A well regulated militia'. This is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda.