In view of the fact that we're on the eve of CT becoming the state with the most stringent gun control laws, I feel it appropriate to make a few observations before leaving this issue for good.
If you're one of the many "extreme" gun rights advocate, my words fall on deaf ears. If, however, you--like me--realize the need for some degree of control similar to what we have for freedom of the press and speech, then I'm preaching to the choir.
I'll proceed anyway.
First, let's put this whole Second Amendment thing into historical context.
When the founding fathers wrote this amendment we were a nation just coming off a war against a foreign country that was fought entirely on our soil.
Second, ninety percent of the population at the time lived in very rural areas where they needed firearms for protection and hunting.
Finally, the weapon of choice was...well, there was only one choice...a muzzle-loading musket that took 3 minutes to prepare to fire...or a bow and arrow.
So with that in mind, the founding fathers knew little of the world to come--high speed, high capacity assault rifles (make no mistake about it. They ARE assault rifles as much as gun rights wing nuts try to spin it).
Having said all that, as someone who has enjoyed sport shooting myself, I do believe in the 2nd Amendment, but not in its current carnation.
Now, what about CT's stringent law. It's a good start, I guess, but to no avail unless the entire nation is on board. When it's possible to go to Texas, or Indiana, or Georgia, or Montana or wherever to purchase on the spot just about anything you want, well, obviously CT's efforts are minimal at best.
So that's it. Just a little common sense. Consider why the military went from 20 round clips like I used in the 60s to 30 round clips. Simple. You want to produce more casualties? Cut down on loading time. The NRA says that's ridiculous, but it isn't. It's simply a fact.
Don't bother responding. I'm not going to read it.