Gun ban/Confiscation, 2nd Amendment Outdated.

"That school children would take military style weapons to school and shoot there class mates. " Assault Rifle: Defined- a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. Style: Defined- A particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character. The military Style you refer to is just that, a "look" that it is to be perceived as a military weapon such as an assault rifle that it is by definition not. Rifles out of all gun murders are only 323, out of 12,664, 6,220 were done by pistols. Pistols have a mag cap of ~15 at max which is more than the cap that mag restrictions are aiming for on rifles. Rifles are bulky and impractical to commit a crime, it not easy to conceal, it brings too much attention and over all more troublesome to reload compared to a pistol. "That people with severe mental health problems would get a hold of military style weapons then go on shooting sprees. " In truth everyone, to a certain degree, is mentally ill, all veterans are technically mentally ill. In fact if you"re not mentally ill then you might be considered "inhuman", due to lack of Emotional response. As for getting a hold of a firearm, some due fall through the cracks but doesn't mean a ban should be required to correct this issue. "That people with no training would mass arms, well over the need to defend them selves and family, with no desires to protect there fellow citizens. " This statement has no backing, yes Americans can own mobile firearms, but when every weapon has certain characteristics that differ from the other and are to be used in a different manor. One could say a good practice of a gun owner would be 1 Rifle, 1 shotgun, and 1 handgun, per person. A family of 3 would need 9 guns in one household. This is not even counting a specialized long range engagement rifle, a "sniper rifle" if you will. To carry a firearm one needs a permit currently, which requires training and a background check. Personal experience of my encounters would go as far to say gun owning Americans are the most likely to be in NRA, Militia, or a veteran, all willing to help their fellow American. "The American citizens would sit around and do almost nothing while tyrannical gangs control whole sections of our cities. " Most gang territory is inside the strictest gun controlled states or are on the border. Hard to do something when citizens can"t even defend themselves or the gangs jumping the border to avoid conflict/law. "The second amendment is out dated because we have taken the right and none of responsibility that our founding fathers amused we would. We have forgotten why we have this right. We have it so we as citizens can take back the gang infested sections of this country. To be able to on mass protect other peoples property when natural disasters occur. Our founding fathers did not think we were stupid enough to allow small children, people with severe metal health problems, and completely untrained people to have access to weapons of war. " I agree citizens should be able to combat the gangs in this country, but like I stated before most of these gangs reside on the border or in the strictest gun controlled states. It"s hard to fight an enemy who can freely run to another nation or is guarded by red tap focused on citizen"s ability to use firearms. As for natural disasters, the National Guard (organized militia), and even the unorganized militia have organized to help with disasters and even in Ferguson Oath Keepers went to do what they have power to do, defending shops who were at danger of being attacked and looted. But again, red tape restricts firing a rifle inside cities. Meaning they couldn't engage the gangs causing the attacks unless it is in self-defense, Later they were ordered to leave or be arrested by police. Showing the lack of power the current militia holds which can only be changed by listing the militia, organized or not, as a modern force allowing for enforcing law in a state of emergency (rioting), the ability to use military weaponry, in reason (no need for a tomahawk missile), But this can only be done by the Militia Act or State law. Small children accidents have been decreasing total of 19 in 2011, mental health is too broad to attempt any type of discrimination for in can include anyone and everyone, a rifle that a current civilian can hold is a semi-automatic, weapons of war can only be referring to military grade firearms which again are select fire, med caliber firearms which, to gain in America, requires a FBI background check and training to even purchase. "A ban on large mag, heavy caliber, and automatic weapons for anyone that does not have military training. " "Article 1, Section 8, clause 16 of the Constitution, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. "" As all people are part of the militia, all people must be able to appropriately provide themselves of the weaponry to combat an opposing military force. Therefor ban such things will only weaken the only constitutional legal military army. Training is up to the State to decide not Federal Government according to this article, so why not introduce legislation that would require all Americans, during schooling or something, to be trained in a military manor for X amount for days/weeks. No need to ban such things and limit what the American people (the militia) can do. By the way, only when the Federal Government raises the militia to combat an outside force does it take control of said militia. "Background checks to ban fire arms for people with severe mental health problems" I have stated before this is too broad of a ban for it can ban all Americans therefor again restricting the militia"s ability to defend the Nation. Background checks are already done but they cannot catch people who have never shown previous mental issues. "A ban on any armed group, or person, with a stockpile of weapons unwilling to be called upon by there state in times of need. " Again I have found no proof of this ever occurring, and in my personal experience gun owners are more than willing to help their fellow American, as in country for the people are the country. If you"re referring to the gangs inside this country some are very patriotic, because they fear that the new rule will take their territory, and would fight to the death because of it. But yes the illegal gun users, the ones who have a gun, but intend to harm or threaten those who don"t submit, do need a crackdown. But ban is not needed, just enforcement of current illegal activity/ violence. Conclusion: Banning is not the solution it will restrict the people who are the only constitutionally legal military force, own as The Militia. Yes, there are people who use weapons; because guns are not the only thing that causes death, to commit crime, but like I said before these groups are located in gun restricted states/cities where the people can"t even do something about it. I would also point out the mass shootings are always done somewhere that has a no gun policy. Could it be the people who wish to do harm/crime do not want someone who will cause harm to them before they finish? We have gun restrictions all around us but has done nothing, how would a ban do anything more? A felon can still gain a weapon not from a store or gun shows as all anti-gun advocates point to. They either come from other gang members, across the border, a family member, (I would agree this grey area may need to be corrected but we shouldn't restrict guns by family affiliation) or the largest supplier, Black Market. The correct way to solve the mass shooting issue is to stop promoting mass shootings, for it may cause a copycat to emerge. Every time a mass shooting happens the media will cover it like ants on sugar. Is that really fair to promote all this attention to some who has committed a heinous act? Why not cover the old lady who scared off thugs using a gun, why not cover the countless crimes prevented by a gun? Firearms deter violence due to the fear of getting hurt, if we as people don"t promote attention to someone who wants to cause harm. Wouldn't that decrease their reasons for doing so? Every mass shooting was all for attention, before they attempt suicide to avoid the punishment in doing so. These are people, who want to die, wanted to remembered before they go, yet we give them the attention they want how is that fair? The 2nd amendment is still valid in this century and will continue to remain valid for it is a timeless right for the people. The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force, requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment, if Militia is considered a US military force, and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime. That is what is needed in this country not some ban or confiscation of the fire arms in America.