Strangely enough this is not going to be a rant. It will be logical so it will be brutal. You have been warned.
Ever since Mc Donald v. City of Chicago where the right of an individual to ‘keep and bear arms’ became an individual right this country has been faced with an issue it refuses to deal with. This is what is know as Civilian Acceptable Casutly Rate by students of military action. Traditionally this issue only needed to be dealt with during times of war and usually dealt with the number of non-combatants killed or injured. Since 2010, in the United States, this is no longer the case.
Once owning any kind of arms (be it small hand ax or a WMD) became an individual right any and all laws seeking to restrict the ownership, much less the use, must pass what is known as the Strict Scutiny test. Basically this means the State has to show why an individual should not be allowed to possess a particular kind of arms. Usually, but not always this test must be applied very narrowly so you could have a law dealing with the possession of 9mm pistols with barrel length of x mm and 11 round clips but not a law dealing with all arms of 9 mm caliber. One of the more challenging legal questions we face is just how we draw depictions between unique types of arms. To my knowledge there is now test yet for this in law.
Next we have the postulate that anything can be misused, or used in a manner not acceptable. Example a car: I can use a car to go from one place to another or I can use it to run people over. The former is acceptable and the later is not. Therefor we can say any arms an individual has a right to possess can be used or misused. Another fundamental postulate is that all individual rights end where they come into conflict with other individual rights. The classic law class example of the is “My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.”
In the case we are dealing with here an individuals right to bear arms, to live, and/or to happiness. When a law restricts, any anyway, an individuals possession of an gun (arm) it comes into conflict with his/her right to keep and bear arms and, possibly happyness. When a gun is misused, like shooting up a school, the right of the people in the school to life and/or happiness has come into conflict with the right of someone(s) else to keep and bear arms. This is where exceptable Civilain casually rate come in.
We need to decide just how many innocent bystanders being casualties is too many. Right now we seem to accept the NRA’s position, any number is acceptable. That the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms trumps all other individul rights the people of America have. That the right of an individual to have any kind of gun, be it pistol, rifle, or what ever, is so important that another’s right to life must be sacrificed.
I, for one, do not accept the NRA’s position. Ever since I started studying Constitutional Law I have excepted the fundamental postulate that now individual right is superior in any way to any other individual right. They are all equal. So I say to you, what is your Acceptable Casualty Rate so that you can exercise your 2nd amendment right(s)?