The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to overturn the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. was met by much fanfare by gun advocates and hunters, and derision and disappointment by those in the progressive community, including, I'm sure many here at dKos. But remember, owning a gun IS a right and that right needs to be upheld. I know this has already been diaried but it's something I feel very strongly about. So here goes...
It is important that we have strong, standardized, nationwide gun control laws, but an outright ban, I think not. And those gun enforcement words should be less proactive and more to do with punishment and penalties after the fact. Do we need background checks for ALL gun purchases, absolutely. But I don't think it's fair or wise to prevent law-abiding people (hunters, enthusiasts, security personal who have to purchase their own weapon, and collectors) from purchasing firearms without jumping through a prohibitive number of hoops. It is necessary, though, to have those legal purchases - ALL those legal purchases - registered with whichever state the purchase was made. We tell the government when we buy a car, I don't see why we shouldn't when we buy a gun.
But let's be honest with ourselves. Those that buy firearms to use in criminal enterprise (drug dealers, pimps, gang members, common thugs, etc.) buy those guns through sub-legal channels anyway. So registering all gun purchases with the state will not curb illegal gun sales. Therefore, a mandatory minimum would be necessary for anyone caught even possessing an unregistered weapon. Also, any violent crime perpetrated with a firearm should require a minimum sentence so severe that people would be discouraged even from contemplating such an act. I would suggest minimum 35-50 years incarceration without chance of parole just for the gun. The penalty for the violent crime would be a different sentence altogether.
Having such a structure or registration and severe, unyielding penalties for gun violence and possession is the only way to ensure the governments ability to fight back against violent criminals and gang warfare while still protecting the rights of ordinary, upstanding American citizens. I know I find myself in the minority here but while not a gun owner myself (indeed I've never even fired a weapon) I respect and will defend the rights of my countrymen who choose to own and use weapons in legal capacities.
It is my strongly held belief that support for and defense of the Constitution is a zero-sum game. You either accept and respect the document in it's entirety or you do neither, ever. It is disingenuous and I would argue unAmercan to pick and choose which amendments are "more important" than others or which ones are "irrelevant" or "out of date." If a ban on firearms in your city or state is your goal, you'll hear no argument form me personally, but a repeal of the Second Amendment is your only recourse. And I would warn you that those in rural areas of every state, and even smaller cities like the one I live in South Central Pennsylvania, would fight such a repeal tooth and nail. And remember, they have guns.