[Washuu]

Trying to compare the Second and Fourth for reworking does not work well since they are fundamentally different concepts.

In the case of both amendments the laws enacted surrounding them are the issues. In the case of the fourth amendment there are problematic laws such as civil asset forfeiture that are overreaching and result in the lost of property loss with little to no resource. In the case of the second amendment the laws are usually created by people who don't even know how guns work at a fundamental level.

[krapp]

>In the case of the second amendment the laws are usually created by people who don't even know how guns work at a fundamental level.

Fair enough, then, what fundamental knowledge about guns do you feel would be necessary to enable a lawmaker to enact more reasonable gun legislation?

[Washuu]

Taking a gun safety course that teaches the basics of firearms and how they work. Just spending some time talking to a firing range safety officer to help clear up misconceptions.

Off on a tangent the best two examples of bad/attempt legislation I can think of at the moment:

1.) Bans on "silencers". They're actually called suppressors and they don't silence anything. Suppressed weapons typically still have a noise level over 100 decibels and hearing protection still must be worn.

2.) Bans on "scary weapons". The color or stylistic choices of a weapon does not change how deadly a bullet is when it hits a fleshy target. In general bans on characteristics of firearms that do not change how deadly they are.

Best two examples of loop holes that got around poorly written legislation that resulted in wonky interpretation by the ATF:

1.) Bump stocks and hand cranks to get around automatic weapon bans. No one needs automatic weapons for sport shooting or hunting. While I don't speak for everyone I would never want an automatic weapon for either of those since it is useless for them and just wastes ammunition. Current ATF rules require every shot be accompanied by an user initiated action such as a finger movement. So technically those two devices create an user initiated action for every shot per the ATF's interpretation of the written laws. For example a manual hand crank is allowed since the user has to continually perform the action, but the same crank operated by a powered motor and switch would not be allowed since a single user action would result in more than one shot fired.

2.) Being able to shoulder a pistol with a stock that was not intended to be a stock.(Arm brace) This is a weird area of the law. AR-15 pistols(barrel length under 16") are not allowed by shouldered since they are pistols, but you can attach an arm brace and shoulder it anyway. The ATF recently more or less gave up enforcing it since firearms evolved and changed so much since it was original written.

There is a lot more in depth in the world of firearms I could into and how easy it is for a gun owner to accidentally commit a felony due to bad legislation.

[krapp]

What would good legislation look like, then, given that more practical understanding?

I believe you're correct that a lot of gun legislation is driven by an unreasonable fear of guns, and that those laws simply aren't effective as a result. However, I also believe there is also an unreasonable fear among a lot of gun owners regarding the motives behind gun control as well.

[finnn]

> In the case of the second amendment the laws are usually created by people who don't even know how guns work at a fundamental level.

That's funny, I've described a lot of computer laws like that, often specifically with regards to government search of people's data.

[Washuu]

Absolutely agreed on that.