"Once again, it is all about money. The NRA is a very strong group, who lobby and influence politicians, once again with fear. If you touch our gun laws in any way, we will make sure you lose the next election, by mounting huge ad campaigns that will once again instill fear, and remind them of their 'right' to bear arms."
So lets do a sanity check. A few decades back there were a string of laws including a ban on assault weapons even though they were not assault weapons. Who was voted out of office because it was passed? Please be specific.
I look at a weapon in a practical sense. I live in a world with other people, most are pleasant, some are violent.
The odds of coming into conflict with a violent member of society is small, but still a very real possibility.
If faced with this possible conflict, I would rather come out the victor not the victim. Which necessitates me having more power to effect the outcome of the event then my opponent.
To this purpose I carry a gun.
Carrying Chuck Norris proved to be too difficult.
Also he's rather rare, there's exactly one of him and millions of people who want to carry personal defense aids.
I wonder if a Chuck Norris blow-up doll would work as a deterrent?
In addition to background checks, perhaps there needs to be a multiple choice test for hunters to determine if their ability to distinguish people from various game species is a bit shaky. For example,a hunter recently shot a cop by mistake, thinking he was a turkey.
He should never have gone hunting with Dick Chaney.
Who can't tell the difference between a turkey and a pig?
The courts usually go to what the Founding Fathers meant as the primary interpretation. Back in their day, there was no prohibition on people carrying weapons of almost any sort. In fact, even gentlewomen in those days were frequently carrying at least a knife. Men on the street with rifles and/or pistols would not have caused a stir.
I have less of a problem with people carrying arms than with WHO gets to carry arms. People with mental problems and established records of violent and reckless behavior worry me.
At the same time, I don't see how we can control weapons at all without taking them away from those who would never cause harm. We'd never consider doing that with automobiles because some people get drunk. That they will be misused is simply something we're going to have to accept.
If someone is terribly concerned with the problem, I suggest they leave the United States. I'm not saying that in the "Like it or leave it" sense, but just realistically that, since it would take a Constitutional amendment to get more control over guns, and since that ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, leaving the country is what you really need to do.
Or accept reality and hope you will never need a gun.
Tis better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
When asked by a friend who was a Naval Shore Patrol officer why he wore his gun even when off duty, his response was "If an occasion arose where I might need it, it won't do me much good at home locked up in a box."