Well, now that you have spewed another of your irrational rants based on ignorance, why not try some common sense (and I know I am asking the impossible). Just as a point, the majority of the people support stricter gun control laws.
There are quotes by the Founders, and I believe Sam Adams was one, that the people should be armed just as the military is armed. This would prevent the military from being able to overcome the people with missiles, bazookas, etc. However, over time the government has banned such weapons from civilian ownership. Yet the foolish ones do not consider this an "infringement". Why? Public safety is the main reason.
Now we have yet another case where public safety is at risk. And we have one of two ways to go. Either ban the most dangerous of weapons, or arm more people. Common sense would tell the sane person that arming more people will only create a greater threat. However, common sense is not the rule of the land anymore. Only fear mongering, and lies. Maybe you should consider arming your children/grandchildren so they can "protect themselves" since you cannot do so 24/7. Maybe a small .25 semi auto for ther little ones, then graduate to a .380, then the 9mm.
The Constitution does not guarantee that you can own an AR, or any semi-automatic weapon. Under the convoluted ruling of Heller you are only guaranteed the right to own a weapon be it a single shot, a bolt action, or a pump, period. If that is not good enough then tough shit. YOU change the Constitution, or the rulings of SCOTUS.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU
"But that is not the big news from Judge King’s opinion, which was joined in full by nine of the 14 judges who heard the en banc appeal. The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons.
That’s right: According to the 4th Circuit, the military-style guns used in a disproportionate share of the mass killings in the U.S. are outside the aegis of the Second Amendment because they are most suited for military use.
Gun rights advocates are not going to like this decision at all, not least because it turns the words of their favorite U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 2008’s
District of Columbia v. Heller, against them. In the Heller opinion, Justice
Antonin Scalia struck down the District’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own weapons “in common use at the time.” Justice Scalia said, however, that not every gun meets that definition. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”"