Lawrence O'Donnell on Gun Control

Lawerence makes a lot of sense.  What's so wrong about sensible gun control?   Do people really need submachine guns?  Or armour piercing bullets?  How about a restriction on the amount of bullets a clip can hold?  What would be so bad about that?  What's so wrong about a waiting period or a background check to purchase a gun?  Why is there a gun show loophole?  Is there no room for common sense here people?

I don't want to hear the Second Amendment arguments either, they didn't have submachine guns or armour piercing bullets or RPG launchers when that was written and as Thomas Jefferson once said "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."  

And what of the First Amendment, specifically "Freedom of  Speech"?    There are sensible restrictions placed on that, you can't run into a movie theater and yell out "FIRE!" can you?  You can't libel or slander someone can you?  If there are sensible restrictions on the freedom of speech, why not sensible restrictions on the freedom to bear arms?

**** This just in, Justice Scalia seems to agree with me.