The big excuse for the carrying and owning of firearms in the USA is that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and so we go on and on with one massacre after another. But the killing of 20 beautiful kids is absolutely beyond rhyme or reason.
Could I suggest to the anti-gun lobby that – “Yes under the Second Amendment enacted in 1791 there appears to be – with a very broad interpretation of the Constitution – some right to bear arms”.
So how about sticking to the letter of the law under the Constitution and agreeing to that right to bear arms, as when the Law was enacted in 1791 – “a gun made by a gunsmith, with rudimentary rifling, single shot weapon loaded through the muzzle and fired by means of a flintlock”. (I thank Jackson Pellow, Opinion 17 Dec, for this description of arms, in use when the Constitution actually guaranteed the right to bear arms)
Would this achieve the aims of the Constitution?