My main frustration is that we can't even have a debate or research gun violence to come up with possible ways to prevent or curb the trend of massive gun related deaths. Our country is so divided, there is no more progress, only bickering.
A lot of the problem is that the liberals keep hammering away at the proliferation of guns in our country, and emphasizing how so much of the problem can be blamed on the so called "assault" rifles, while the gun owners insist that there is no mechanical difference between an AR-15 or an AK-47 than any other more politically acceptable semiautomatic hunting rifle. If they can't reach an agreement on this one issue, why not just back away from that can of worms, and try and find some other course of action that everyone can agree and act upon? Sometimes, the solution isn't either to tunnel through the mountain, or climb over it, but to simply ignore the mountain altogether, and go around the damn thing.
Even if some agreeable alternative only works half as well as the liberals claim that the gun legislation would, that is still an improvement over what we we have now, and any improvement can be further refined to become even more effective. This single mindedness is killing more innocent people than all the guns in anybody's arsenal.
Why not do a referendum on gun laws? That'd be democratic and productive.
Mainly because, unlike almost every other country in the world, the United States recognizes, formally, in its Bill Of Rights, that all law abiding American Citizens have the guaranteed right to own firearms for the purpose of self defense. As long as that document and that article exists, our government can't just arbitrarily decide, or even call for a vote to determine, to require all firearms, or even all firearms of a particular type, to be either turned in or confiscated. The closest that the government can do is to ban any further production or import of certain type, such as the so called Brady Bill did. Everything already owned or or in dealers' inventory remains perfectly legal to sell or own. The closest thing to an exception to that law is that the individual states may, within their borders, apply certain regulations, as long as they don't violate the general language of the Bill of Rights (that was determined just recently, when Washington D C's total ban on civilian ownership of handguns for the purpose of self defense was overturned as being unconstitutional. D C still has the authority, however, to require gun owners to require a license to carry a handgun concealed outside someone's own personal property)
It has been argued that, because of he specific wording of Article 2 (A well regulated MILITIA being necessary to a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) this specifically refers to either the standing Militia (National Guard) and not civilians, but the Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of the American people, and not any part or section of the State. Further, the term "militia" as of 1794, names "every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 54, and all able bodied veterans, regardless of age, as being part of the militia, subject to being called to either state or federal service at any time." As long as Article 2 remains in effect, American citizens will have the right to own firearms. That is a fact, not an opinion, and a guarantee that laws such as exist in England and Australia can not be enacted here, and as long as the Bill of Rights exists, Article 2 will be a part of it.
Whether we approve of it or not, the Bill of Rights, and each of its Articles, are acknowledged rights given to all citizens by a Higher Power than even our government ("All men are created equal, and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE, or irrevocable, rights...") not just a list of government granted privileges.
(See, I told you not to get me started on the subject of gun control)
