The 2nd amendment is not being discarded even with gun control legislation, so this is hyperbole. A right to gun ownership doesn't mean that there cannot be sensible regulation of guns.
We already have an assault weapons ban: Civilians cannot own ridiculous calibers of weapons/cannons/explosives, nor can they own automatic weapons (without extensive licensure), and no _new_ automatic weapons can be manufactured and sold to civilians. As a result of these regulations, one or two crimes have been committed with 'real' assault weapons in the last 50 years. Further regulation at this point is unneeded and pointless.
What IS needed is stricter background checks, a background check on private sales (this is called 'transferring through an FFL'), and we need the experts to come up with a strategy to help keep ALL weapons (not just guns) out of the hands of the mentally ill.
What's being proposed is a general reduction in weapons that 'look like' military assault weapons, which is pointless and will ultimately accomplish nothing (as it has in the past).
>...and we need the experts to come up with a strategy to help keep ALL weapons (not just guns) out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Stricter background checks and checks for private sales is a great start, but I'm skeptical of trying to control gun access for the mentally ill. Most people with mental disability or who are not neurotypical are not violent or have violent tendencies, so where is the line drawn? It should also be noted that mass shooting events have been perpetrated by people who didn't have outwardly violent personalities, so would something like this really even help? We may be better off tackling health care access and social problems rather than increasing stigma about mental disability and illness.
