Doctor Fate wrote:
1. Those “few hundred” are elected by millions.
And? Do you think your representatives reflect your views on every issue? Or even the representatives from the party you vote for?
2. It was ill-defined. Some of the features banned were for appearances only.
And others, such as high capacity magazines, were pretty clear. Perhaps improving the definitions would have been a better idea than giving up.
3. Irrelevant. To take away guns will take door-to-door searches, nation-wide. That’s a “police state.”
The 1994 law included grandfathering. Would that be acceptable to you, as it would not mean trying to "grab" guns already held? And hey, you already do have searches for other contraband, that is law enforcement. Should you legalise drugs to avoid searches for drugs? Of course not.
I understand you don’t like weapons. Okay.
The US isn’t going to ban everything except slingshots and muskets.
STRAW MAN ALERT!
I don't really like weapons, that is true. But I do not think banning all guns (or all bar muskets) is the right thing to do. We don't do that here. As I have said before, my uncle was a gunsmith until a retired a few years ago. A mile from my house is a gun shop. A few miles further, a small gun maker. We ban quite a lot of types of gun (more than I think is acceptable in the US), and we regulate
There is a problem. The problem is two-fold: 1) people; 2) government failure.
Banning weapons is not the answer to either.
I disagree. You can assert hypothesis and principles all you like. I would prefer to go on data. Whether you like it or not, increasing regulations on guns tends to reduce the harm (1) people can do, and (2) the need for government perfection on monitoring people who are a risk.