Whatever the original meeting I believe that gun rights are to protect us from the government. Why should the government have a monopoly on guns? The citizenry is so incredibly armed. 90 per 100 households. It would be difficult for government forces to control the American people in a reasonable way. This is good. Mass shootings are tragic. Absolutely tragic. I will agree with the American in the video above that statistically its a non-issue. The reaction that the government, the media, and the meek have in response is the same one they have to terrorism. Terrorism is tragic but its a drop in the ocean. Its not worth casting such a wide net to stop such a small problem. The best gun control solution I have heard after the Auora and Newtown shootings is Gun Liability insurance for gun-owners. You must have insurance if you own a gun and if your gun is used in gang-violence or some other criminal activity then your insurer will have to pay out. This encourages the insurer to correctly screen their clients at a reasonable rate.However, if that were to be the case today the citizenry would need to be so incredibly armed, that it would be impossible. It's an impossible comparison.
Because those 90-to-100 household gun owners would be organized and trained enough to engage in combat with the well-trained soldiers employed by the US army? To contend with bombs and tanks? If the government wanted to subjugate its people, rolling over a few gun owners with romanticized notions of firearms would be nothing. The second amendment is made to protect people in an age where a gun was the ultimate weapon, and when firing a gun required a minute to reload if you were trained, and had a moderate chance of hitting anything of worth, and that's what both people and governments had available. This is not the case anymore. Let me be extremely clear - the notion that the second amendment, in 2013, protects american citizens from tyranny, is romantic at best and dangerously misleading at worst. No citizen uprising in the US will ever be won again by strength of arms. It is not possible. Maybe there are other means, but what the pro-gun camp is supporting is not what will do it. That might not have been the main thrust of your point but I wanted to make sure that is brought to attention. It's totally unreasonable.
The best gun control solution I have heard after the Auora and Newtown shootings is Gun Liability insurance for gun-owners. You must have insurance if you own a gun and if your gun is used in gang-violence or some other criminal activity then your insurer will have to pay out. This encourages the insurer to correctly screen their clients at a reasonable rate.
While I think this is a very interesting proposal, there is absolutely no way that the NRA would allow such a thing to happen here.