Well, it always takes a tragedy of some kind for the whole discussion of access to firearms to come up. Too bad, but it has to come up somehow. I will grant that Obama has a lot on his plate, at the moment, but I hope that he will not put off discussion of gun controls for too much longer. Obama is in a strong position. He cannot have another term in office anyway, and whatever he does is not going to hurt another candidate badly in 2016.
The NRA of course is adamantly against any regulation and they own well more than half of the Congress. But dramatic events like the massacre of 20 children in Connecticut may embarrass enough of those Congressmen and women who are otherwise owned by the NRA to allow them to vote for controls. There is the 2nd Amendment, of course, but its meaning needs to be interpreted realistically in terms of the modern concept of "militia" and whether or not modern militias (i.e., the National Guard, etc) require citizens to furnish their own firearms. The answer is obvious, but the Supreme Court may not be ideologically available (at the moment) to understanding that.
Then, of course, there are the truly insane people who just argue that the answer is to arm the teachers. Good grief! Can you imagine the chaos created by school staff and teachers all going for their guns in the event of an attack. How many more fatalities do these people want? There is, indeed, a whole group of people who think the country would be a safer place if we were all "packing heat." I think that's pretty much what the old West was all about and it wasn't really a great formula for civilized society.
Personally, I do not believe that many people want to prevent citizens from owning shotguns and deer rifles so that they can hunt. I have been a hunter myself; and I believe in hunting. Handguns are a little different but I can see some reasons for people owning handguns for hobbies or for self-defense. (Though I must say that shooting a home invader with a handgun or rifle is dangerous because of the weapon's long range. I have always been told that a shotgun is more appropriate, given its relatively short range of effectiveness.) But let's face it. People really do not need to have automatic and assault weapons with large clips of ammunition. Hopefully, we can legislate some controls over these weapons.
Of course, the fact of the matter is that incidents like the most recent massacre in Connecticut are not just about guns. They are also about mental health and how we choose to handle or choose NOT to handle mental health issues. People need to recognize how very dangerous mental health issues can be and, consequently, they need to take them seriously. Unfortunately, the very conservative gun congressmen are also the ones who would like to cut social spending and cripple mental health counseling. What a combination.
Here is an additional idea. Quite consistently with the Second Amendment, we could make the owners of military-style weapons enter their local National Guard units. After all, that's what "justifies" the ownership of these weapons. Of course, from that time onward, the weapons would be housed at the local armories. The new Guard members could visit their weapons and practice with them in the Guard shooting ranges. We could even offer instruction and award marksmanship medals. Result: these weapons are off the street but still ready for Second-Amendment use. Come on guys!
Here is an additional idea. Quite consistently with the Second Amendment, we could make the owners of military-style weapons enter their local National Guard units. After all, that's what "justifies" the ownership of these weapons. Of course, from that time onward, the weapons would be housed at the local armories. The new Guard members could visit their weapons and practice with them in the Guard shooting ranges. We could even offer instruction and award marksmanship medals. Result: these weapons are off the street but still ready for Second-Amendment use. Come on guys!
