The intricacies of this gun control debate is surreal for non Americans. in my common sense there is no debate about people having rights to own AK 47s. I know there are historical debates about the intended scope of the Second Amendment and I do have to side with the interpretation that it doesn't actually apply to modern context.
USA at least has a (somewhat) legit history to back up their gun loving freaks. What's beyond pathetic is Brazilians importing that shit and pretending that this is a pressing debate on public security in Brazil. One of their top arguments is that they should have the right to own guns to protect themselves from an oppressive Estate. I picture a fool with a 38 peeking through his window while war tanks are rampaging the streets.
It's surreal for me as an American, and I agree with your interpretation that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the modern context.
We actually had an assault weapons ban in place but George W Bush used 9/11 as a reason not to renew it. And while I understand that it is not logistically feasible to confiscate all guns from the population, I don't think any private citizen should own anything larger than a handgun. And that includes hunting weapons. If you can't hunt with a pistol then don't hunt.
Your funny hypothetical about citizens vs tanks is actually what fuels the retard side of the gun debate in this country. People think they should be able to own automatic assault weapons so that the GUVMINT can't force them to give up their freedom.
Force wouldn't even be necessary. Unlike in Brazil, Americans are very trusting of the government and also (like or unlike Brazilians) very naive. The right publicity campaign could take away all liberties before 90% of the population even realized it.
