[richlevy]

I guess one question is 'What is the gun designed for?'. Someone with a bolt action rifle is not going to be able to quickly kill two dozen people. What is really needed for hunting, target shooting, home defense? Who uses a 30 round clip to hunt deer?

One problem is the lethality of weapons. If someone wanted to build and own a low yield nuclear device, then told their neighbors that it was perfectly safe and protected by the second amendment, the response would be obvious. Because the lethality of the device directly impacted those neighbors, including the threat of it's misuse. By the same token, a concealed knife or openly worn sword is also lethal, but limited in their ability to inflict mass damage. A semi-automatic firearm, however, is capable of inflicting great harm, even assuming the assailant could be overpowered.

A lot of arguments about the Constitution revolve around the intent of the founding fathers. The personal weapon technology of the time was the flintlock rifle and pistol. Imagine any of the recent mass shootings being committed by someone armed with a flintlock.

Our founding fathers did not have to consider 20th century weapon technology when they considered the 2nd amendment, other than to imply the intent being a well regulated militia. This presumes weapons training and weeding out of unsuitable candidates. Show them a clip of the fire rate of a semiautomatic pistol and those requirements would have been a lot tighter and more explicit.

Switzerland allows honorably discharged veterans to retain carry permits for weapons. You don't see many mass murders in Switzerland. Of course American culture is considered to be too violent by most industrialized nations.