It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

2nd Amendment The Supreme Court is an appeal to authority. This is not a debate over the legality of gun control, but rather the rationality of opposing gun control. Since pro trusts the courts, here are some court rulings; "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." ~Cockrum v. State, 24 TX "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." ~ Nunn vs. State, 1 GA Pro has ceded that the founders were rational. "But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm.…. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands… It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. " ~ Madison, Federalist Papers #46 "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." ~ Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29 Practicality 8th amendment Preventative laws, including but not limited to gun control, don’t prevent crimes; they only increase the severity of the sentence for existing offenses. Black Markets Not only are black market products are more dangerous for the consumer, but black markets are used by criminal organizations to fund other crimes. Although the guns would be harder to obtain, they would still be obtainable by criminals, to use against the law abiding citizens. WMD The NPT has not prevented the spread of WMD. It is much easier for governments to obtain WMD than it would be for private individuals, and yet most governments have a hard time developing them. For the time and money spent developing WMD, an individual could make a greater quantity of explosives, which could cause more damage collectively than the WMD. Alternatives Non sequitur. Pro claims that it does not follow that if guns are banned, the criminals would use another weapon. This could not be further from the truth. If a man wanted to kill his wife, and someone took away his first choice of weapon, he would just find a different way to kill her. The desire to commit a crime does not derive from the tools; it derives from the criminal mind. Mass Murder As I’ve already pointed out McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer, and injured over 650 more. Lanza only shot 26 people. 818 casualties > 26 casualties. Bazookas First off, a bazooka is extremely easy to make. If bazookas were banned, people would just make their own.http://www.youtube.com... Furthermore bazooka is not a practical weapon to use against individuals. A bazooka is used primarily against vehicles. Furthermore, unless the person with the bazooka has support, they would be a sitting duck.