LiveLife is correct. If there is a presidential debate, both candidates will have to answer tough questions on gun control.
I agree. I believe discussion of gun control/gun rights will be center stage for presidential debates (I am counting on Trump) as he will accuse the Democrat presidential candidate to push for more gun control measures.
This is how I have been responding to questions Beto O'Rourke commented in Colorado.
“Do I care more about how upset somebody is who owns a weapon ... for ... self-defense, or do I care more about the families who’ve lost a child?”
While my heart goes out to families of those killed in mass shootings, I believe in "
Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (as spoken by Spock in Star Trek). My rationale is
while hundreds could be killed by mass shooters each year, tens of thousands are killed by violent crime nation wide. So as a society interested in saving larger number of lives, arming citizens (potential victims) is a better option. I tell them the reality of violent crime in every city/town nationwide and ask them if home invasion took place with their life and lives of their family/significant others threatened, would they prefer to have the armed defense option, and almost all of them say yes.
For any presidential candidate to say they care more about the families of victims of mass shootings (And this question may likely be asked in debates) would be political suicide as
VOTERS would CARE MORE about their own lives and lives of their own families/significant others.
Option A:
- Banning/confiscating guns may not stop/decrease mass shooting deaths
- Banning/confiscating guns will violate the Second Amendment
- Banning/confiscating guns will likely increase violent crime deaths, especially for disabled/elderly/female home owners with less physical strength/agility
Option B:
- 50 state legalization of AR15s/AK47s and normal/larger capacity magazines may reduce violent crime deaths
- 50 state concealed carry reciprocity may decrease mass shooting deaths as it gives potential victims an opportunity to shoot back
- Expanding gun rights to include latest technology such as binary triggers/integral sound suppressors will provide disabled/elderly/female home owners better options to defend themselves
As to citizens being able to use "modern" firearms/technologies for application of the Second Amendment, following is expressed in District of Columbia v Heller opinion of the court -
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search ...
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Just last week, a Georgia family was attacked by three masked robbers. Had the home owners not been armed with "modern" semi-auto firearm with "modern" ammunition storage device, outcome could have been different with the home owners shot/dead instead -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...pistol-killing-them-all.856344/#post-11235810
How would 2020 presidential candidates debate this robbery attempt? Not well for anti-gun candidate as multiple attackers, possibly all armed, could have overpowered the homeowner with just a revolver.