Because I’m sure that’s what the founders had in mind when they included the 2nd amendment in the constitution.
“We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.
“And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said ‘Boy, it’s really pretty up here,’ but she said, ‘But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it’s like five miles between every house.’
“So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.”
That last statement sums up the idiocy of the entire gun control philosophy. Even if you could manage to eliminate all those handguns and shotguns used by gangs (and no gun control law could ever accomplish that as it’s a bit like putting toothpaste back in the tube), the guns in that scenario aren’t the problem. It’s the people who would use the guns to commit crimes and violence who are the problem.
You take the guns out of that situation and you still have violent thugs looking to do violence. So maybe we should address why those people are criminals, and why they’re committing crimes, instead of just trying to ban the tools they use to do the crimes. Tools that could be replaced with something else.