Reasonable "gun control" only further legitimizes gun ownership IMO. No Constitutional right is an unlimited one.
The problem is that once you give credit to "reasonable" laws you undo the very definition of the 2nd. If you don't really believe it will stop criminals from aquiring guns you are undermining the very wording of the 2nd that defines your right to arms and threatening your future ownership simply to inconvenience criminals. That seems pretty stupid.
I have used this example before because it is so clear in its effect:
Mexico has a 2nd Amendment. It was put in place after the revolution by the people who had just dealt with repressive government and they borrowed the idea from the United States. It is Article 10 of thier constitution:
"Citizens of the republic may, for their protection, own guns and arms in their homes.
Only arms sanctioned by the Army may be owned, and federal law will state the manner in which they can be used."
Well as we know Mexico basicly has no right to arms and does not let more than a small minority possess any arms. There is fewer than
2500 registered legal gun owners in Mexico, a nation with a population of 103,000,000+ people. Those few that do are generaly limited to a .22 or shotgun for pests in very rural locations. The result is drug cartels and criminals are well armed, police and government are well armed, and the citizens have to gravitate to one or the other for safety.
This is all because they essentialy undid any right to arms by saying the government could outlaw them and choose how they could be used. In America the "Shall not be infringed" is the only wording that changes it for us.
Governments naturaly do not want armed citizens, it impedes control and posses a risk to those making unpopular decisions.
However as we see, even many gun rights advocate support bans for certain types of weapons, certain people, restrictions etc Well once you agree that "shall not be infringed" does not 'really' mean "shall NOT be INFRINGED" it is up to others to define. It becomes nothing more than a line in the sand, to be moved further and further from a right. This is especialy important as the Supreme Court rarely hears the issue and generaly has tried to avoid dealing with it. When they finaly do hear it, if they decide that "shall not be infringed" does not really mean "shall not be infringed" and uphold certain agencies rulings or laws or guidelines as to infringement then the second and many other rights in the Bill of Rights ceases to have any meaning beyond being symbolic.
The Bill of Rights was never about what the people are allowed to do, it was about what the government is not allowed to do, even if the people or government think it is a good idea at the time.
So do you think shall not be infringed means "shall NOT be INFRINGED" or do you think it needs to be redefined every 10 years by legislation? Follow the example of the other nations we share a legal past with? The UK, Australia, NZ, Canada? Gradualy restrict them till the right is only a privelidge for a limited few for use against animals, the types one can get permission for are limited to those which pose no deterent to government, and the police and other agents run around with very capable military arms and body armor?
That is the very drastic imbalance of power the people breaking away from a tyrannical British Empire sought to prevent with the 2nd.
In such a society people like Hitler can get a lot accomplished in a very short time. Don't forget he was elected by the people of Germany fair and square. His National Socialist party was very appealing to the people going through the depression at the time. The people and the government can decide to do stupid things in a short timespan, that is why we have the constitution. The Constitution is only as sacred as the people decide it is by not allowing the government to waiver from it.
I would like to say "criminals shouldn't have guns", "some shouldn't have full auto" but these are "infringements" to the constitution and are relatively recent in our history. Before 1968 anyone even convicted criminals could have them, and before 1986 any American could get a cheap domestic machinegun if they paid thier $200 tax stamp. For a few hundreds years we had anyone and everyone getting whatever firearms they wanted with whatever record they had and things worked out just fine. People that used them wrong were hanging by a rope, and people that pulled them out on others in public risked getting shot from any direction from multiple people packing. Here is a great article that highlights how the "wild west" was actualy a safer time period than modern times even in the most dangerous types of towns at the time:
http://www.jrborden.com/DoseOfLead.htm
When anyone and everyone could and did have firearms of whatever type they could come up with we were safer and had less problems than we do now.
In fact if we got rid of gun laws, encouraged ownership, and got rid of drug laws (I don't care for drugs, but recognize just like prohibition it is the root of most organized crime) most crime would simply cease to be. Criminals would risk injury or death victimizing others, and people inclined to play with drugs would have them at regular commodity prices that did not require illegal activities to pay for, while purchasing them from legitimate companies that did not fund any organized crime just like alcohol. Yes more people would use them, yes our society might be ever so slightly less productive because of it and therefore generate less tax revenue, but much of our problems would go away.
No more organized crime, no more addicts and punks burglarizing and robbing for drug habits (which is the reason behind mosy property crimes) far less identity thefts etc. People so inclined would sit off getting high not bothering others while they wasted thier lives away. That sure beats the current situation where they find illegal ways to aquire a lot of money as predators on a daily basis.
So I am a firm believer in actualy following the constitution and letting any man do as he pleases until he directly infringes on the same rights enjoyed by another man.
