Originally Posted by Warfish
The original purpose of teh bearing of arms was one to assist in keeping the State in check. It's quite obvious, given they had just finished toppling a Govt. that oppressed them.
But as tech has marched on, the armed individual is no longer a check vs. the State. The State, simply, has vastly outclassed them individuals in terms of weaponry, meaning this purpose has, through no fault of the individual, become outdated in real terms. I don't like that, but it is what it is.
As such, my own view is one of compromise. Protect gun rights, while limiting access to high-potential high-ammo high-RoF millitary-style weaponry.
Handguns w/ 10 round clips. Shotguns. Rifles. All legal.
Beyond that, illegal.
I can live with that kind of compromise, IF and ONLY IF we could be assured that like so many issues, this wouldn't simply be taken as Step 1 in a Multi-Step Plan to make all guns illegal. Sadly, I have no faith that the left would agree to such terms for long.
. (Not sure about the 10 round clips; haven't given enough thought to that issue to offer an opinion on whether that's a good number). The Second Amendment cannot serve its purpose, not unless we want individuals having access to RPGs and bazookas and the other weapons that would be necessary to stop a modern army - and I think we all
agree we don't want that.
This won't come as a surprise to 'fish, but my personal view is you do the right thing and deal with the slippery slope as it comes.