Well every politician knows to not let a good crisis go with out politicizing it. The mental health aspect as valid as it is, becomes very problematic. Who judges then the mental stability of someone on wether or not they should have the legal right to own a fire arm. That right there is enough to stall any well intentioned plan to keep firearms out of the hands of those with severe mental issues. But even then no one can even remotely come close to keeping fire arms out of the hands of those who are intent on finding them and using them, be those who are mentally ill or not.
Any Democrat politician knows that the second a gun is fired or used in a crime, the first thing to do is blame the NRA, second, blame a Republican. We can argue about suppressors, or these now controversial butt stocks that some how do something to make rounds fire faster, but then what about when people realize that they can alter the trigger to squeeze faster, then someone will say well we have to ban that too.
The entire arguement becomes pointless, because then once you figure out how much needs to be controled of the actual weapon, then you have to get into the bullets and gun powder. The government could easily declare that those who make the bullets need to make them fire at a slower velocity and then ipsofacto guns are a little more useless. But people still have the right to have firearms.
The stupidity of it all never ends.
I guess if I had to force myself what is common sense gun control, would be to say that the government does have the right to limit how much ammunition and firearms one can legally own at any given time, and to ban any altercations to a fire arm or cartridge holder that. An can limit fire arm by type as well, such as being able to own only one of each, shotgun, rifle, pistol, and semi automatic rifle. An then if someone says well how much ammunition do we get, I guess if i had to pull a number out of the air I would say no more than 100 rounds of ammunition at any given time for each firearm. An then the government can change that for times of conflict or whatever.
It is really hard to argue why someone needs a stock pile of ammunition and a stock pile of firearms, when it is just for one person. An since one cant legally create their own standing army and militias are limited by state, it becomes even harder to vailidify the need. Not to mention that we have a well equipped military as it is,so if another force were to beat our military our country would be toast and needing a stock pile would be pretty pointless by that point in time and an underground resistance would be needed.
But again that is just spit balling BS in the event I was forced to make a decision, honestly I just don’t care over all, because if I really had to have a fire arm, I would find a way to get one legally or not.