What I propose is that in order to win this once and for all, we need to understand why the "other side" says "no one needs one of those". One of those can be everything from a Ruger .22 pistol (still want one of those
) to a Barrett .50 cal. (would like one of those too).
I have friends and family on both sides of this question as I'm sure most of you posting in this thread do. And many of those on the other side have as much or more passion for their argument.
My wife has shot my 9mm one time. She won't go again, at least by her choice. Once when I came home unexpectedly and she was affraid upstairs, she grabbed scissors, not the S&W. She is that affraid of the weapon. And that is just the pistol.
I'm not a huge collector, I've just ended up with everyone's deer rifles over the years as they've retired and moved on or sadly passed away. If I were to post photos of my collection most of you would laugh (with the exception of 1).
So if not for me she would be like her parents. They would be affraid of the weapons themselves. They would be affraid of what the weapons can do. And mostly they would believe that you could take them all away and everything would be a happy, not threatening place with nothing to be affraid off.
So to respond with "cuz the 2nd amendment says so" will ultimately result in a constitutional battle for a change to the wording and intent. And I don't believe that will happen...................but it could.
I believe we have to keep the focus on the who rather than what. That responsible people can be trusted to own, collect, display and shoot firearms to any level they can afford. And that we as gun owners (at least I do) fully and strongly support keeping weapons from criminals or feeble minded people that cannot or are incapable of the level of responsibility.
And that takes us back to 400 HP Camaro
It is the same battle to some extent. There are many environmentalists out there that see no reason why anyone would need a car like that.
Take any news article on gun control and replace the words gun, weapon with car and then replace assault rifle with Camaro SS and the word magazine or "clip" with 400 HP V8 engine.
I think you'll see it's the same argument.
For me personally, I view the gun itself as intertwined with who we are as a nation. In some cases it's more than the 2nd Amendmant. It's part of who we are and how we got here. And I still think that is important.
This debate is party about fear of the weapon itself not our right to own it. If I'm affraid of it, then you couldn't or shouldn't possibly need it. Right?
So I think we have to continue to demonstrate resposibility as gun owners and overcome that fear in others. That will go a long way in this debate.
I'm pretty sure that everyone in this thread would agree that there are some people that should not ever have access to a gun. And that for me is the tougher question. How do you prevent that?