Let's get this out of the way first. The Second Amendment is really not up for debate. I know people just love to be all <whining>"wahhhhhhhh the second amendment was talking about a militia. wahhhh they only were talking about muskets. wahhhhhh my butt hurts because the nanny state forgot to wipe my ass"</whining> but really... the Supreme Court pretty much settled that in 2008 with D.C. v. Heller, and then refined it in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago. The second amendment protects the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms. The drafters intended for this little thing to be a part of the Constitution because they had seen first hand how important it was for the people to have such a right and be able to stand up to the government. Here's the thing... have you ever noticed that none of the Bill of Rights are about protecting people from themselves, or even other people? They're about protecting the people from the government. These guys weren't stupid... Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison and Mason and Henry, they knew exactly what they were writing and what it meant and would mean for the future of the fledgling nation. Just read the letters between them and you'll see it's very clear what the Second Amendment means.
Not that any of that matters anymore anyways, since the US Supreme Court, the guys who do this shit for a living, made all of this very clear. Go read the opinions, they are fantastic. The people's right to keep and bear arms, to defend their person against others and their government, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. But you'd be wrong.
I know what you're thinking, so I'll shut you up before you say it. "Yeah but other amendments and rights have limits, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, say slanderous things blah blah blah. The second amendment should obviously be limited as much if not more than the other rights which are more important." The Second Amendment is already probably one of the most regulated and limited rights in the Constitution. There are a whole slew of limits which the majority of logical sane human beings and gun owners see as perfectly in step with the 2A. For instance, I can't keep and bear a tactical nuclear warhead. I can't own guns if I'm a felon. I can't own guns if I have been committed to a mental health institution or am otherwise deemed mentally ill. I have to submit to a federal background check every time I buy a firearm commercially, etc. The point is... we don't need more "reasonable" firearm regulations... we already have them.
This right also applies to sporting rifles that happen to have cosmetic accessories to make them appear like military style weapons (these would be known as "assault rifles" in your deranged world). Here's a fun fact: Connecticut already has an "Assault Weapons Ban," as does Massachusetts. In fact, it's pretty much identical to the Federal AWB of 1994. And you know what? the weapons that this fuckstick in Newtown stole from his mother (making them illegal weapons, by the way) were compliant with the law. These weapons are not any more lethal than any other firearms available for civilians to own, and are in fact much less lethal than a lot of high power hunting rifles, large caliber hand guns, and most shotguns. It sucks to hear it, but there is not a single piece of legislation that could be passed that if it were passed before these horrific tragedies in Newtown or Aurora or elsewhere, would have changed a god damn thing. In fact, the only thing that MIGHT have stopped these things from happening, that MAYBE could have saved some lives, is if someone happened to be concealed carrying while dropping off their kid or at the movie theater or a teacher/principal/janitor just happened to have a gun in their car. And I am by no means someone who thinks the answer is more guns, but them's just the facts. Killers will find a way to kill, no matter how they do it. We've been killing each other for thousands of years, and will keep doing it for thousands to come.
And that's the problem with this kind of emotion-driven, symbolic legislation. It does nothing. In fact, it's a huge waste of resources, of money and time and energy. The legislature is not there to make you feel good. I'm sorry if that's what you want.
Guns are a tool with a legitimate purpose, just like a hammer, a chainsaw, your car, your dildo collection. If you don't like guns or don't want guns or think they are scary, fine. You don't have to own one, that's your right. But don't tell me I can't exercise my right to own keep and bear one either.
_____________________________________
Drats... i completely forgot the point about how the as-already-mentioned-to-be-useless federal assault weapons ban of 1994 did absolutely nothing to stop columbine from happening. And Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, injuring hundreds more, with a box truck and some fertilizer. And you know what? bombs have never been legal to own. And you can still buy fertilizer and rent box trucks.
The homicide rate and violent crime rate are actually in a 30 year low right now, and continue to decrease. The violent crime and homicide rate were WAY higher in the 1970's... heck in the last 20 years there's been a 50% reduction in these crime rates.
What happens when you start this whole "even one life saved" crap is that you start to value some lives more than others. Rifles account for an incredibly small percentage of homicides using guns, and "assault rifles" even more so... under 1%. Handguns obviously account for the overwhelming majority of gun violence. The overwhelming majority of them illegally owned. Kids die in the inner cities of Chicago and LA and NY and so on every single day. But no one seems to care. I actually had a silly liberal tell me when confronted with this that the kids in Newtown did have a better chance at having a bright future because of where they were from. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
If you want to do something about the violent crime and homicide and gun crime rates, increase patrols in troubled neighborhoods, bring in more community service options, build up the schools. Don't pass a law that will have no real effect on what you're trying to solve... a problem that really isn't existent in the first place.
The problem is that it's pandora's box. You can try to take away the guns however you want, but they'll still be there and just as easy if not more easy to obtain. Take a look at England... I have several British friends, all of whom have told me that you can pretty much walk into any back alley in London or Bristol or Manchester and buy a gun for 50 quid. It's essentially illegal to own a firearm in England, yet their violent crime rate is MUCH higher than the US. Or look at Chicago, a city where you could not own or carry a firearm (until it was deemed unconstitutional by the 7th circuit about a month ago). Chicago should be all rainbows and unicorns, right? Why then does it have one of the highest homicide rates in the country?
If anyone thinks that gun control will actually solve the problem, they only need to look at the war on drugs. It is quite illegal to possess or use any drugs in this country, yet I could probably get my hands on pretty much whatever I wanted in about an hour if I really wanted to. The average drug addict can probably do it in way less time than that. What makes you think the same won't apply to firearms?