If gun control does come, bear in mind it will be just part of a program to prevent such massacres in the future. If you listen to the gaggle of experts and pundits interviewed in the wake of these slaughters, many don't even see gun control as the biggest piece of the puzzle. Other pieces one hears proposed:
1) An end to violent shoot-em-up video games. I hope you like The Sims, because if they have their way, no more Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
2) More attention to mental illness, which threatens to catch people who are eccentric (or even "goth") in the same net as the true crazies. Concentration camps for schizophrenics and bipolars? Maybe not concentration camps but if the mentally ill suffer from public misperceptions now, things won't get better for them.
3) Throttling the violence available to the public via TV and movies. Imagine a world with no Batman or James Bond movies and no crime/police movies on TV. Instead nothing but chick flicks and "uplifting" or "inspiring" TV shows.
4) Getting God back into our everyday lives, focusing on the schools and on promoting Christian-oriented television.
The lesson: be careful what you wish for, because you may get it along with a few other things you won't like nearly as much.
You're conflating regulation on what types of firearms are available to the public with removing the right to own them altogether - again.
You can regulate against assault weapons without infringing on a right to bear arms.
Based on the Supremes' hard line on the City of Chicago law, I wouldn't hold my breath that they will uphold much limitation. The best hope is for a couple of the Justices to retire or die during Obama's term.
You are talking about restricting the right to own arms, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, there's no cosmic law requiring a crook or killer to OWN the gun he uses to perpetrate the crime.
Rights aren't automatic. People must show that they are worthy of them, and there is sufficient history to suggest that not all Americans are deserving.
If you allow a child to have unfettered access to chocolate, and the child gorges itself on the stuff, you'd step in fairly quickly and limit the child's access to it.
The rights of the individual have to be balanced by the rights of others. The rights of 26 people to life itself have just been irrevocably withdrawn because of the rights of one individual to own a ridiculous arsenal have been abused.
All of our societies must balance the rights of one person against another.
I want the right to be gun free. In a society where other people have guns that becomes more difficult. What about my right to walk down the street without fear that the next upset person I meet might have a gun?
In Australia I have that right and I am so very glad. Guns and gun violence can still be problems here, but I don't fear them in my daily life, because they are highly unlikely to be a problem.
I would even guess that criminals are less likely to actually fire a gun in a country with tight gun laws, because the person/business you are robbing probably doesn't have one, so there is no need to go to that extent.
Individual rights and collective rights are highly connected, in my world, Our collective right to a fear free life is more important than your individual right to own a gun.
Constitutional rights ARE automatic in the United States. You have them until you do something to lose them.
Any comparison with parents and children is irrelevant. Children aren't born with the right to each chocolate or watch TV. However, they are born protected by the Constitution without having to earn or deserve it.
Constitutional rights may be automatic, but aren't guaranteed to be fixed permanently in stone. Hence the "2nd Amendment". They can be changed or withdrawn at any time, although the process to make this happen in the US may necessarily be somewhat fraught and long-winded. Ask black Americans about their rights now, as compared with 100 years ago.
The comparison with parents and children was intentionally flippant, merely to illustrate the point; I thought that was fairly clear.
I stand by my final paragraph. With rights come responsibilities, and anyone or any group that abuse their rights at the expense of others - grossly so, in the case of mass shootings - risk losing their rights, and those of others who may be perfectly innocent, but who enjoy the same rights. And rightly so.