"Control" or "Regulation": words matter in this contentious debate. The Second Amendment succinctly, if not a bit cryptically reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [Memo to anti-government conspiracy types: a "militia" aids and assists the government in the absence of a standing army, not exists to oppose it, that's treason.] So regulation it is!
The Supreme Court confirmed the right to bear arms as a Constitutional Right, but subject to reasonable regulation. America holds just 5% of the world's population but is awash in 40% of its firearms, much of it unregulated. Just as freedom to travel is modified by reasonable laws concerning vehicle ownership and use, surely stringent and meaningful laws to ensure such inherently lethal objects as firearms are possessed and used as safely as possible is constitutional. Let's face it - assault rifles do not effectively serve for self-defense or hunting. Banning military style guns and ammo will cut down on the threat of mass violence and risk to law enforcement. Regulation of all gun sales with mandatory background checks is a must along with a comprehensive national registry. Not every nut will be thwarted from causing gun violence, but this approach will greatly improve the situation. Such gun restrictions do work in countries where they are in place.
Florida has strict punishment for those who possess, fire, wound or kill others during the commission of a crime. That carries minimum mandatory yearly prison terms of 10-20-25-life and 3 year minimum mandatory prison sentences for felons in possession of firearms or ammo. But that is after the fact of harm caused but the use of firearms. So still waiting for meaningful gun regulation for this civilized society....
