“you admit that she ‘isn’t emothionally (mentally) prepared to hear about 2a’.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear: she’s interested in getting and knowing how to use a handgun to protect her and her young child. She understands that it’s her constitutional right. She’s having a bit of trouble accepting that that right means some people who perhaps shouldn’t have guns can get them anyway. I’m feeding her info (not just Dad’s opinion) on purchase procedures and requirements to show her that the safeguards are there, they’re just not perhaps observed as fully as they should be.
‘She’s having a hard time processing why some get guns that shouldn’t have them’
—————————
She’s asking the wrong question.
1. Define those that shouldn’t have them
That answers everything. There are 2 groups of people, those that commit crimes and those who don’t. Laws already exist that address this. What she and many others tend to ignore is ‘until you have committed a crime, the second amendment is a right’. Period.
It’s a slippery slope to take away someone’s rights because they ‘might’ commit a crime. And that applies to those wanting to make it ‘harder’ to get a gun. That is unconstitutional. Frankly, I don’t think the constitution says ‘if you commit a crime, you can’t own a gun’. As a society, we are fine with criminals losing their rights. I’m not arguing against that. What I am saying applies to those wanting to lessen the rights of those who don’t commit crimes.
It’s human to fear those that might commit crimes but not worth losing one’s rights. Our amendments guarantee our freedom. And freedom involves risks.
For those arguing about large clips, AR-15’s etc.: Having a large clip is easily replaced by having several small clips. So no, that is not the answer. The answer is more weaponized people. Here’s why:
1. Prior to DNA, rapes were numerous and rarely prosecuted. It also helped with murders. DNA reduced the problem.
2. Prior to mass surveillance on every street corner and building, robberies and other crimes were rarely solved. Video reduced the problem.
3. Mass shootings, a modern problem, can be reduced by eliminating gun free zones and the like. Armed citizens will reduce the problem.
My point, most that commit crimes do not want to be caught or stopped. Laws mean nothing to them. The AR-15 isn’t the problem, sitting ducks are the problem.