Well, there is another issue, and that issue is the question of enforceability.
It is often commented on that gun laws only effect the law abiding, that sort of thing.
But let’s be honest. There have been cases where violent convicted felons were caught after their release and found to have guns. So it does sometimes work.
But if we get 2. as an outcome, then THE TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS that people are talking about would no longer be allowed... no more blanket bans.
And that, to me, would seem to be a step in the right direction.
So while no restrictions at all is the most easily enforceable choice, a “reasonable restrictions” clause is only slightly more difficult to enforce.
Now, if they were to go with 1, then they better have 400 million armed Chinese guys in boats off the coast ready to come in and go door to door.
They know that. They’re not fools.
How does that indicate the restrictions work?!?
And that, to me, would seem to be a step in the right direction.
Both sides can say that.
So while no restrictions at all is the most easily enforceable choice, a “reasonable restrictions” clause is only slightly more difficult to enforce.
I'm not in favor of removing rights just because it's "easily enforceable"...sorry.
I'll admit that the connection broke after only 38 minutes and I can't seem to restart it at that point, so I'll have to listen to the end when I have more time. Note that many important inflections and nuances (yes, nuances) of the discussion are lost when just reading the transcript, IMHO.