The debate about gun control would be less emotional and far more productive if we had clear definitions upon which to base this debate.
For example, in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (2008), the Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to weapons that are "dangerous and unusual", such as "short-barreled shotguns".
It would be very helpful if the Court would more clearly define the term "dangerous and unusual". That would allow us to more objectively identify those weapons that are, and are not, protected by the 2nd Amendment.
I offer this suggestion knowing that it could result in weapons being permitted for civilian use that I think should be restricted to the military. I would prefer that to the circus that is masquerading as a reasonable debate on this topic.
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom