But, even if using the comparisons of alcohol and cars....we dont really ban anything. You can own a car that drives 200MPH, when one can only legally go maybe 80 on any public road in this country.
As far as alcohol, I can buy as much as I want. Are kegs outlawed? How about buying a 30 pack instead of a 6 pack?
Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime. And typically, the rational for that is the old....My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. ie, my rights end when they effect your rights. However me simply owning a piece of metal and plastic does not effect your rights one bit. Not one iota.Hate is regulated by the First Amendment and is punishable if it results in a crime. Ergo: guns should be more strictly regulated by the Second Amendment and citizens punished if guns result in a crime as well. Key to hate eradication in the first case is enactment of laws that punish a person for acting on hate; eradicating violence caused by guns requires enactment of laws that restrict a person's access to certain guns and punishes them if they get ahold of such weapons and use them in any crime.
Bans on ANYTHING is really not the way to go to solve our problems. As we can see with drugs. A prohibition on drugs has certainly not stopped our problems with drugs, and in fact, only created more problems. The black market thrives, gang activity and violence are all related to prohibitions. The drug war is one huge contributor to the violence problem in this country. It is time THAT prohibition goes away as well, but that is a different story all together.Background checks for everyone buying a gun is part of the solution. Mandatory reporting by physicians of Freaky McFreaks to a database used by ATF/Justice and gun dealers is another piece of the answer. Providing better mental health screenings and access is a third pie slice. But you have to admit that restricting gun access as well as ammunition capacities on guns *must* be part of the solution as well. It doesn't work without it.
I have no problem with mandatory reporting of 'freaky mcfreaks' to NCIS. I would say that it should be limited to people that are actually a danger to themselves or others however to prevent other civil rights violations. That would also go along with providing better mental health access that I have been saying since the first page of this thread. As far as gun access and ammunition capacitys....again, no. Once again. We did not try to reduce drunk driving by limiting the amount of alcohol one can purchase and own. Or even the strength of alcohol. That IS prohibition. And history has shown us that time and again...prohibitions fail. They do not lower crime, but increase crime and its associated violence.
Prohibitions = Bad.