[Demarcus ware]

For 200 years, basically, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as a collective right more than an individual one. "Well regulated militia" being defined as seminal to the overall structure. The idea of any private citizen, any weapon, any time is a new construct. I think the pornography standard is relevant here: "I may not be able to define obscene, but I know it when I see it." I may not can define precisely a military style "mass kill" weapon, but I know one when I see one. The preamble of the Constitution is relevant in interpreting the rest of it. Sometimes, "promote the general welfare" might figure in to gaining the scope of a right, so yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Now, some might argue that is a slippery slope, and is just a gradual chipping away at free speech. I would think, surely, that reasonable people could come up with some good definitions of what a military style "mass kill" weapon is, and likewise surely, come up with a process by which such weapons require an extremely stringent process in order for a private citizen to procure. In my view, this is not an unreasonable narrowing of the 2nd Amendment, when balanced with "promote the general welfare." All down the line, our Constitution is a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government.

This was actually already done in 1994. It was the ten year ban on assault weapons i think it was called. They had a list of what qualifies guns as assault weapons. Then came along the Columbine high school shooting in 1999 and at least one of the guns on that list was used in that massacre. Then it wasn't renewed in 2004 when the ban expired. There's been several attempts to renew pretty much the same ban except they wanted to renew it with no time limit, but those attempts have failed.

As a gun person i don't want to see it. I would rather see the laws we have in place actually be used. What does making new laws accomplish if we don't utilize the laws we already have?