I think this is how things should go.

-- Restrict military grade weapons to people who join a militia: either the official (state regulated one - National guard) or an unofficial militia.

-- Make sure the common population has access to basic weapons without joining an organized militia: handguns, basic rifles, etc.

This will do two things. Limit the number of weapons out there under irresponsible ownership, and encourage responsible owners to join militias, which is a good thing and is promoted by our constitution.

Not only would this decrease the chances of a lunatic accessing weapons, but it will reinstate the proper respect for human lives and weapon use that our nations (as in its definition of peoples - U.S is not a nation-state) once had.

This would be smart legislation that works, and it would transition the U.S into something a bit more like Switzerland.

The only reason why nobody would push for this is because liberals want to ban guns entirely and neo-conservatives want to centralize the military power within the standing military. The paleo-conservatives, known as the tea party, would be a minority in this battle. So the next best thing is to keep things how they are until the dust settles and proper judgement can be made without extreme emotions influencing decisions.

Meanwhile, back at the NRA press conference, LaPierre was blaming anything and everything for the Sandy Hook massacre except guns.

I'm sorry, America needs a militia?

A militia. Guns are so out of control you need to hire or just gather a group of gun owners to protect against other gun owners form shooting each other. That will end well.

This thread is ridiculous! 

I think this is how things should go.

-- Restrict military grade weapons to people who join a militia: either the official (state regulated one - National guard) or an unofficial militia.

-- Make sure the common population has access to basic weapons without joining an organized militia: handguns, basic rifles, etc.

This will do two things. Limit the number of weapons out there under irresponsible ownership, and encourage responsible owners to join militias, which is a good thing and is promoted by our constitution.

Not only would this decrease the chances of a lunatic accessing weapons, but it will reinstate the proper respect for human lives and weapon use that our nations (as in its definition of peoples - U.S is not a nation-state) once had.

This would be smart legislation that works, and it would transition the U.S into something a bit more like Switzerland.

The only reason why nobody would push for this is because liberals want to ban guns entirely and neo-conservatives want to centralize the military power within the standing military. The paleo-conservatives, known as the tea party, would be a minority in this battle. So the next best thing is to keep things how they are until the dust settles and proper judgement can be made without extreme emotions influencing decisions.

Educate yourself on the matter and you'll understand. The founding fathers were proponents of militias INSTEAD of a standing military. The militias are there for many reasons. The most important one in today's context is during riots. The main argument for keeping automatic and semi-automatic weapons among the populace is that they acted as protection during the LA riots (and similar.) With militias this makes a non-governmental military body. It must be non-government so that they can't be used to oppress the people.  Look at countries like Switzerland where homicides are nearly non-existant, because instead of a standing military they have a militia, and hence have gun regulation without the harmful effects of gun laws and it without a government monopoly on the weapons. Banning guns entirely won't get rid of the 300 million that are out there. When political states like the UK and Australia banned guns only a few hundreds of thousands were meant to be destroyed.  There are 90 guns for every 100 people in the U.S. It is unfeasible to destroy them or cofiscate even a small minority, especially when the owners are so commited to their natural rights and wouldn't give up their weapons without massive conflicts. The best solution is to promote education and regulation via the militias, which are entirely organized by the people and society. 

well the thing is any able body person can be a militia.... me with my guns is a militia. so i agree. i should be able to keep my Ak-47, AK-74, SCAR-17s, Glock 19 gen 4, Glock 19, Glock 17, Henry Repeater, AR-15, Mossberg 500, and smith and wesson .38 special. i just need more ammo, i only have ~1500 7.62 rounds, 700 .308 rounds, 1000 9mm rounds, 1200 5.45 rounds, 300 5.56. im running low

Educate yourself on the matter and you'll understand. The founding fathers were proponents of militias INSTEAD of a standing military. The militias are there for many reasons. The most important one in today's context is during riots. The main argument for keeping automatic and semi-automatic weapons among the populace is that they acted as protection during the LA riots (and similar.) With militias this makes a non-governmental military body. It must be non-government so that they can't be used to oppress the people.  Look at countries like Switzerland where homicides are nearly non-existant, because instead of a standing military they have a militia, and hence have gun regulation without the harmful effects of gun laws and it without a government monopoly on the weapons. Banning guns entirely won't get rid of the 300 million that are out there. When political states like the UK and Australia banned guns only a few hundreds of thousands were meant to be destroyed.  There are 90 guns for every 100 people in the U.S. It is unfeasible to destroy them or cofiscate even a small minority, especially when the owners are so commited to their natural rights and wouldn't give up their weapons without massive conflicts. The best solution is to promote education and regulation via the militias, which are entirely organized by the people and society. 

Weird, we had riots recently (in the UK), no guns were fired, no deaths. Also are auto rifles needed during a riot? Surely maybe riot shields, then water cannons can be used before you start shooting people?

I know it is impossible to destroy what is it 30% of the worlds guns, but still. Since the shooting, gun sales in the US have gone up! Really!!

And when Americans start using a 200-300 year old document to excuse owning a gun is dumb. I'm sure your founding fathers wanted you to kill school kids.

Also according to the BBC there are 7 places to buy guns compared to McDonalds. That's a normal balance!

The United States of America is NOT the United Kingdom. There are different socioeconomic and historical reasons for why some things may or may not work. 

Gun sales have gone up because people are afraid their guns will be taken away. Hell, if I wasn't living in a dorm (where I can't own a gun) I'd be purchasing some of my own out of the same fear. Guns are our safety line. We don't need them often, nor might we ever need them, but they're there. 

That 224 year old document is the basis of our law and the reason why the United States is the longest-lasting republic in existence today. We can't ignore the basis of our entire political system. Also, I didn't kill any kids, nor did 99.9999999% of gun owners kill kids. People are responsible for their own actions, and it seems odd to me how some people place such actions as fully a responsibility of the government or society to control at all times. We live in a free society in which individual liberties are the premier notion of living good lives. 

McDonald's kills more people than guns, actually. Heart-disease is the leading cause of death in America. ;)