Technically, the article is flawed. It's easy to make your own ammo. Legally, the article is flawed. The Supreme Court is very very very clear that restricti

Technically, the article is flawed. It's easy to make your own ammo. Legally, the article is flawed. The Supreme Court is very very very clear that restricting someone's ability to exercise a right is a restriction on that right; they've said it over and over again about free speech, political donations, the exercise of religion, the right to avoid self-incrimination. and many other areas. Including the right to own and bear arms. Like it or not, the Supreme Court has said - twice! - that you have an individual right to own a gun for, among other things, self defence. That doesn't mean "so you can bludgeon an intruder with it" it means "so you can shoot an intruder with it". With bullets. And any law you make that meaningfully restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to shoot an intruder in their home will not fly without a constitutional amendment which is - needless to say - not happening. And anything which does not restrict the ability of a law abiding citizen to shoot an intrude in their home will not stop future school shootings. (Yes, I know. It's crazy, and it's not how it is in other countries. But it's also objective reality.)