Dino, I agree that gun ownership carries with it a great deal of individual responsibility. But in my mind, mandating these things through a series of laws (that necessitate a bureaucracy to enforce) makes it more complicated than it needs to be. We all agree (by convention) to drive on the right side of the road. Every day, we pass thousands of cars, separated by mere inches, any one of which could kill us in an instant. We keep our distance from opposing traffic not because the law says we must, or because there is a fortified wall between us -- we do it because we have all been taught to appreciate what could happen if we don't. This is the preferred model for reducing gun violence, in my opinion. In the past, teaching our young people how to handle and use firearms safely was a solemn ritual, and it still is today for those who engage in it. Sadly, too few do.

Then there is that pesky Constitution you were sworn to uphold and protect. It does not say there are conditions such as you describe to owning a gun. SCOTUS has upheld that states and municipalities cannot unreasonably restrict such ownership. So, if that is what you want to do, you will need to amend the Constitution. The founders wanted citizens to have the right to own guns, but also gave you the route to change things. It is very difficult for a purpose. Otherwise, the country would be in chaos every time an administration changed. I agree that gun ownership is a huge responsibility. But, so is tinkering with our founding principles. The current president, a guy who was an instructor of Constitutional Law (he was not a professor), should know better and will get a swift lesson from the SCOTUS if he tries to overstep. While Rome is smoldering, we continue to get sidetracked on these social issues instead of focusing on the cancer (the debt) that is destroying our economy. We already have a real threat of the filing of Articles of Impeachment against Obama if he oversteps on this issue. I have no doubt those articles could pass in the GOP controlled House. I also have no doubt he would never be convicted in the DEM controlled Senate. But, it won't stop our National attention from being diverted for months from the real issues we need to address. We are led by dopes who don't care about anything except staying in power and keeping their emoluments.

Dino,
What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed", do you not understand ??
You are way too far into Govt. Control,

Think of it like this, switch the 2nd & 19th Amendment n issue an Obama Edict
"For their own good, overweight women can not vote until they slim down!!"
Howya think that would fly buddy ????

Sorry Dino... but a secured weapon is not a weapon but a piece of usless metal.
When seconds count, a secured weapon is only a minute away.

Dino... show me where driving is mentionted in the Constitution.
You can't because it's a "Priveledge" not a consttitunioally guarnteed right.
There are thousands of laws allready on the books and only sane honest people obey them.
And those same people are the ones you want to restrict their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Fair enough. Eliminating guns from the Earth is not a reasonable goal, but I can't help but feel that it is still at the core of every anti-gun activist's arguments -- it is what motivates them. And we can't stop the merry-go-round and head in a new direction as long as they continue to maintain some glimmer of hope that this can be achieved.

Jerry, I'm on the gun rights side myself, but I keep an eye the other guys, and what they are actually arguing for. Exceedingly, exceedingly few - few enough to be ignored as the bitter fringe - actually want to get rid of all guns, and I think even that position effectively goes away with a little education/familiarity with guns. The vast majority of gun safety advocates are looking for some sort of targeted solution, like more training, requiring gun locks, background checks, and actually getting rid of a relatively small selection of guns -- the ones that really have no purpose other than killing people, either in mass, or by stealth (ie fully automatic assault weapons, or handguns that can be concealed by a criminal). No one is after hunting guns, or most sporting guns. In general, the left is ambivalent about gun control, which is why it hasn't made much of a move in recent years. The real argument is not about owning guns or using them for daily activities (hunting, shooting). Rather, it's about how to deal with three fringe cases -- criminals/crazies, accidental deaths, and overthrowing the government. The first two worry gun safety advocates, and the last isn't a convincing counter-argument for them.

I think it is important to know your enemy, not just a strawman caricature. Don't believe the hype.

You are absolutely right about the three fringe cases. My essay above (I hope) addresses the first. The second can be handled by education (as I said in a comment above) at a young age. And the third may be ignored by some, but at their own peril.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Great post SGB. As for Jerry, where do people get the idea that Obama and his government are somehow going to turn into a tyrannical government? SGB basically laid out what gun safety advocates are looking for and none of those have the looks of a tyrannical government. Also, I briefly flipped on Fox News and saw that there were gunshots at a St. Louis college. Does anyone have any info on that?

Mr. Revere, I don't know that I have any ideas that the Obama administration in particular is going to turn into a tyrannical government. My fear, like Jefferson's, is of government in general, regardless of who holds the White House.

"I don't know that I have any ideas that the Obama administration in particular is going to turn into a tyrannical government"

Do you often not have any ideas about the things you intimate, Mr. Pipes? How very non-committal of you.

In the many "conversations" I've participated in with those who advocate the arming of the citizenry with semi-automatic weapons and large cap mags, I've often asked why they need such weapons. The two main answers I've received have been that it's fun (an honest answer to be sure), and/or that it keeps the government at bay. The latter reasoning has largely been expressed in melodramatic terms involving the suggestion of armed action in some future revolution ("Wolverines!").

The fact that you prevaricate when answering shows me that some part of you knows that it's an inherently ridiculous notion.

Caffeinated, let me spell it out for you. I wasn't trying to dodge the question, I just wanted to make it clear that I am not on an anti-Obama rant. I don't care who occupies the White House, the government is dangerous. I do believe that history has shown armed action against our government is inevitable. No government lasts forever. Will it happen in my lifetime? I doubt it. Will it happen in my children's lifetime. Possibly. Regardless, human nature being what it is, the option has to remain on the table if tyranny is to be kept in check at all.

Out of line ?????? I was making a simple point.
You are rally taking PC to the max...

I've heard it said that the word "regulated" did not mean the same thing back then that it means now. A well-regulated militia was a well-trained militia.

No, that's latter-day rationalizing. Regulated meant regulated then, too.

A standing national army was rejected, considered to be too much power for the central government to possess. They opted for state-level citizen militias, that would join together under a leader in case of outside threat, as they had done in the Revolution. The fed govt was limited from weakening a given state's militia, so it could not dominate the state, or allow another state to dominate the given state. Hence the 2nd amendment. This bears up through a plain-text reading, and is reinforced if you read the official correspondence and debates of the time (Thomas Payne's letters and personal correspondence between founders can give different impressions if selectively quoted). This was true for 200 years, despite repeated legal challenges. That changed in 2008, when the Supreme Court finally reversed itself and recognized an individual right to bear arms.

I strongly believe in the individual right to bear arms. I wish the founders had, too, and had put it in the constitution. They didn't, but judicial activism has recently solved that problem.

BT, my language was deliberately provocative, to spark discussion. I was not trying to be offensive, but I do believe that this notion that we can somehow prevent mass shootings is a dangerous myth, and those who continue to propagate it are doing a disservice to us all. My comparison to the flu was nothing more than a way to illustrate that there are things we eventually stop trying to eradicate, and simply learn to live with. And it is my opinion that we have reached that point where mass shootings are concerned.

Mr. Pipes,

I pray that I am never reduced to accepting mass murder as necessary to sustain individual rights. If mass shootings must be endured, I pray that I never see the day that my soul does not ache upon hearing of such a tragedy. I do not, and will not, accept mass shootings as a requisite for modern-day life in the United States of America.

I do not see the need to view a gun rights/safety discussion in terms of mutual exclusion. Can we not work to reduce mass shootings while also adhering to the second amendment?

I sincerely hope I have misunderstood you, but you have been quite clear in separate instances regarding this matter. In my view, the paramount right of every individual is life itself.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this is the new reality. We can stomp our feet and say we will not accept mass shootings as a part of life, but in the meantime, the shooters just keep shooting. And consider for just one moment how radically different the dialog on gun control would become, if we *could* all accept this and move on.

You asked, can we not work to reduce mass shootings while also adhering to the second amendment? I would ask you, can we not work to reduce terrorist attacks while also adhering to the Bill of Rights? Sadly, the answer to both of these questions is apparently no.

Jerry could you elaborate on your terrorist point? Because all the checking done at airports post 9/11 seems to be done in an effort to reduce terrorist attacks. Also, how do measures such as not allowing those who are mentally disabled to carry guns effect the second amendment and those who are responsible with fire arms?

It is a sad reality that mass shootings, although still rare, are occurring more often in the USA.

I'm most concerned about the proliferation of the desensitization you are recommending. I cannot bring myself to view mass murder as a variable in a balance sheet for the Bill of Rights.

As for your comment regarding terrorist attacks, I presume you are alluding to the enforcement of the Patriot Act. For the record, I feel the Patriot Act oversteps the Constitution. It is interesting that you bring this up though; since the Patriot Act has been enacted in the name of protecting the citizens of the United States of America while, in the view of many, neglecting some of the very rights afforded those citizens by the Bill of Rights. Why should the Second Amendment garner special treatment and not also be overshadowed by modern legislation in the name of protecting the general public?

BT, you are looking at that in the exact opposite way that I am. If you start with the premise that the Constitution is there to act as a check on the government's power, then no government action should infringe on any part of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment. So I wasn't drawing the comparison to preventing terrorist attacks to say, hey we're violating everyone's 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment rights, why not add the 2nd in there too? I'm saying that the steps the government has taken since 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks (the Patriot Act, TSA, warrantless wiretaps, FISA courts, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, etc.) have significantly impacted individual liberties (and I hope that is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention). I don't personally believe that we are any safer from attack than we were before. It has just initiated an "arms race" between the government and the terrorists. Just like banning <insert weapon name here> will escalate the race between the government and mass murderers, and in the end won't make anyone safer. The murderer who can't get a gun, will attack a classroom with a sword instead. Or will build a bomb. Or will crash his car into a school bus. Or...

In the end, we all lose. We all lose our freedoms, and we lose the lives of the victims. I think I'm okay with only losing one of those.

Mr. Revere, those measures don't effect the 2nd Amendment. That's a different approach to solving the problem, and I don't have any issue with that. I will probably take issue with the ways in which it is implemented, but I agree in general with the concept of preventing the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. I'm not sure how you do that without violating people's rights to privacy, and doctor-patient confidentiality. I think it has to start with close family members taking responsibility for those who cannot take responsibility for themselves or their behavior. But beyond that, I'm not sure how you do it.

Thanks for the clarification, I did misunderstand you in your earlier post.

On point number 1 I think the 2nd is very clear and concise. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

2, I don't know what it refers to but as the data you are putting up 576 are long guns, this is the important data since this is what would relate to the guns they would like to ban. That amounts to about 2% doesn't that tell you we are trying to ban the wrong thing and this is a waste of time?

3. WMD I'm pretty sure are illegal to own already and if they aren't it's like owning a fully automatic machine gun, while you can own one legally in like 37 states, there is a mountain of red tape one must go through with the fine folks at the BATF. It makes it kind of senseless.

Comedy gold.

Mr. Heston didn't originate the phrase, but he certainly delivered it to make it his own.

I recall hearing similar fears of gun seizure four years ago. I'm not aware of those fears having come to fruition. Although I have seen charts indicating gun ownership exceeds that of four years ago.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any proposals to support your claims. I might also point out that, being a member of the Executive branch, the President cannot amend the constitution.

mike k you are ridiculous. Just reread that statement you posted.

I like the way you think Mike K.. :-)
Caffeniated.... yer a _ _ _ _ _

Dave, I tend to agree that the NRA would be a powerful ally, although I am somewhat skeptical that the Obama administration could bridge the current divide. And the NRA is already very committed to promoting gun safety (Google Eddie Eagle if you're not familiar with their campaign). Having said that, I'm not really a fan of the NRA. I would prefer people who value the 2nd Amendment join the JPFO.

where in any of Obama's executive orders do you see him coming after your guns? You are simply an uniformed man who thinks the government is going to turn into some sort of dicatorship. And I would go look at a couple of Republican statements about women (Todd Aiken, Richard Mourdock) before making another senseless claim against Obama.

@ReverePaul Don't feed the trolls.