My reply to a gun nut, insisting she should be able to shoot intruders.
I’m a gun owner myself. But I own no Thompson submachine gun. My bet is you don’t either. In 1934, a new gun control act put restrictions on them. The law was demanded by the public, tired of the massacres. It was supported by the NRA, which had not gone bat shit crazy and had not become dishonest. The law was wildly successful. In the eight decades since, there has been only one death by Thompson. The law has been tested in the courts numerous times and has been found to be Constitutional. You still have your second amendment and your ability to protect your family. Even Justice Scalia, in the Heller decision, said the second amendment could be subject to “adjustments”. I have forgotten the word he used. There have been 307 mass shootings since the first if the year. I don’t know how many involved AR15’s. But I do know that in the high profile cases, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice. They could be made subject to the exact kind of law that eliminated the Thompson death sprees. Those wishing to own one would have to fill out and apply for a special license, pay a large fee and go through an extensive background check. I do not see how that would be unreasonable. Whether it would stop the carnage has yet to be seen. But one thing is certain, the NRA would not be able to ramble their tired “gun control does not work” because they supported the law and it worked magnificently.
Those insisting upon owning the AR-15, could also be required to check them into a local armory when not out target shooting. A “flight path” would be required to be filed to check them out. Insurance would also seem reasonable for those weapons.