I think the nuance here is that guns with the capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time are much more readily available in the USA than in many other developed countries. It's true that guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people... But if you are mentally unwell or otherwise motivated to commit homicide in another country such as the UK you may find out a way to commit mass murder but it will be more difficult. And the statistics and data bears that out. I am a gun owner and like and enjoy my guns, plus I obey the law and gun etiquette as I believe the vast majority of other gun owners do. Also, I recognize that in the USA we have a particular history with Britain attempting to disarm us and failing do so which made all the difference in the Revolutionary War, and this figures largely in the American psyche. Our nation was born out of a distrust of government and tyranny, with a deep rooted trust instead in the right of common people able to defend themselves against such things. But I think we also have to consider changes over time and the threats that we are dealing with now, not over two centuries ago, and consider data and facts. As far as limiting what arms American civilians have a right to, we already have limits as it is illegal to have your own chemical weapons, explosive devices, a nuclear device, etc. There are limits to the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to have a fact-based discussion about where those limits should be. Being able to defend yourself is a reasonable expectation, but I think it needs to be balanced against the realities of public safety. I am hoping that other gun owners (of which I am one) and conservatives (of which I am not one but have many friends and family who are) will join into good faith efforts to come up with solutions on how to deal with the American problem of gun violence, which I personally feel is at unacceptable levels.

I think the nuance here is that guns with the capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time are much more readily available in the USA than in many other developed countries — GRWelsh

Agree, but it’s hardly a ‘nuance’. It is a glaringly obvious fact. There was a feature by a journalist a couple of years ago about the process of acquiring a gun in Japan. Several exams, written questionnaires and more than one interview, taking more than a year in all. Of course Japan and America are vastly different culturally and socially, but then, Japan has almost zero gun deaths and I can’t recall ever reading of a mass shooting. (The assassination last year of Shinzo Abe was with a home-made weapon.)

One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias’. If a well-regulated militia was given control of AR15 assault rifles, it would presumably keep them under lock and key and the control of a responsible officer. Not make them freely available to anyone who happens to want to take one home. There was apparently another Supreme Court ruling some time back which interpreted ‘well-regulated militia’ to mean practically unlimited rights to own any kind of weapon. Which is another thing I don’t understand - why the US Supreme Court has such a libertarian attitude towards gun ownership.

:up:

(1)There are limits to the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to have a fact-based discussion about where those limits should be. (2)Being able to defend yourself is a reasonable expectation, — GRWelsh

1) Agree, absolutely.
2) Being able to drive nails yourself is a reasonable expectation, therefore (?) everyone should be able to have a hammer? It is immediately obvious to anyone who has driven nails that owning a hammer and being able to drive nails are two completely different things. Indeed, the beginner with a hammer and nails is a danger to life (not-so-much), limb, and property. Similarly with a car, an ax, with all kinds of things. The lesson being that possession does not at all constitute or establish competence. And it is "not unreasonable" to require competence as a condition for possession.