This is a pointless discussion. The type of mass shootings we're seeing right now are entirely preventable with some common sense legislation but that's not possible in a world where people advocating for gun control are considered snow flakes and bleeding hearts.
What legislation would that be exactly? What law or set of laws would prevent this sort of thing? First off, you have to be an American, that would be someone immersed and participating in American culture, not someone who is or thinks they are any other nationality, to understand. The right to 'keep and bear arms' is absolute despite what Biden has to say. He, as well as a lot of others, confuses the flexible nature of our constitution, being able to amend the document, with the erroneous view that what is written in that document is not absolute. It is the law of of the land, not the guidelines of the land.
The first 10 amendments, the Bill Of Rights, do not create these rights, they merely describe them. As per both the declaration of independence and the constitution, you have these rights simply because you exist. Rights are not granted by the government, rather they are guaranteed and protected by the government. This can be a difficult concept if, once again, you're not American. Some seem to think that because certain rights are enumerated in the constitution those are all the rights they have. The 10th amendment deals with this erroneous notion.
Unfortunately, as long as the right to 'keep and bear arms' exists from time to time people are going to get shot. It's inescapable. It comes with the territory. Is this too high a price to pay for the right to 'keep and bear arms'? To some that seem to subscribe to the notion that all lives are precious, this is unconscionable. As for myself, there are a handful of people who are precious to me, as for anyone else, not so much. For the group that feels the right to 'keep and bear arms' carries too high a price tag, you must amend the constitution. If you can. In ~246 years no one has managed to pull that off. As for me and those who feel similarly, we are most tolerant of the other group's attempts to limit the right to 'keep and bear arms', often their rationalizations for wanting to do so are entertaining. The most common of these goes something like this "The founders [never intended/could not have known about] [machine guns/nuclear weapons/whatever you don't want others to have]". Unfortunately for those arguments, no exceptions to the right to 'keep and bear arms' are noted anywhere in the constitution. But, as previously noted, those of us on this side of the fence are a tolerant bunch. I would imagine that no sane person wants anyone to have nukes, from governments to you next door neighbor. Writing meaningless laws proscribing things like nukes, RPG's, ... , right on down to sling shots, is mostly tolerated.
I do have one pet peeve when people rant against weapons; before you use the term 'assault rifle' learn what an 'assault rifle' is and what an 'assault rifle' is not.
www.merriam-webster.com
