The problem, as I see it, with the gun debate is that it's rarely about not letting that "100 pound woman" have the right to carry a gun but it's about how that 100 pound woman has a constitutional right to carry an assault rifle, or how that "75 year old retiree" shouldn't have to have a background check or a waiting period prior to purchase or how that "single guy" should have the right to sell or traffic his gun to whom he wants any time he wants. There are sensible people fighting for sensible legislation but huge money interests/gun lobby will not allow it.. Most rational people aren't pro/anti gun but rather pro-responsible legislation.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
I remember a long time ago watching Bowling for Columbine, I believe one of the fathers of the Columbine shooters was speaking at a rally, and said something to the effect of "You do not need a machine-gun to hunt deer." That quote always stuck with me. And I've said on Hubski before, the thing that always got me was that the people who really want guns and the people who might actually need them are not on the same venn diagram, in that the people who really want guns to protect themselves from some invisible sinister force that I don't think I've ever seen before.
And to be fair: there are a lot of gun aficionados who are perfectly harmless, who are responsible citizens, and who will go through their entire lives without so much as knowing someone who fired a gun in anger. Here's my fundamental problem with gun control: I'm of the opinion that those who talk about "what the framers meant" are performing the same style of divination as those who interpret the bible. The Constitution was supposed to be a living document and state-of-the-art weaponry in 1786 extended to but didn't quite encompass "rockets red glare" (Congreve rockets weren't developed until 1804). Rifles were another 20 years away. And while you can kill a mofo with a black powder musket, no doubt, its efficacy isn't too much greater than a longbow. The arms available for bearing were a little different back then. On the flip side, "being necessary to the security of a free state" pretty much says "for purposes of throwing off the yoke of tyranny." THAT is where the gun nuts have a point: when the army and the citizenry are comparably armed, the army is less likely to enslave the citizenry. That's where the militia movements come from - the Montana Freemen, the Branch Davidians, etc. When the Black Helicopters follow the secret NATO signs to throw you into FEMA concentration camps, you'll be glad these fine upstanding citizens are there to protect your liberties. Theoretically. In practice it's all bunk, in practice the armed forces have A-10s and shit, in practice the Preppers don't give the first fuck about your liberties so long as they get to practice their "stand your ground" defense. BUT the kernel of truth is there: the 2nd amendment deals primarily with the needs of the people to protect themselves against organized aggression and a well-armed citizenry is ruled by consent, not by decree. So in theory, there ought to be a way to keep the crazy, the megalomaniacal, the unhinged and the unsafe from Ruby Ridging us all to death. But in theory, that's exactly what they WANT you to think because hey - the Soviets and the Nazis both called political enemies "crazy" and threw them in asylums/gas chambers. So I get where they're coming from. You need a "well-regulated militia" whose regulation cannot be co-opted by any tyrannical force intent on neutralizing their effectiveness. The organizing force behind that "well-regulated militia" would operate under the same aegis as the NRA. They'd probably say a lot of the same things. They'd probably counterbalance gun control exactly the same way. So here we are.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.
Quite. Lost in this discussion is the licensing/training angle because the minute you bring it up, the 2nd amendment gets thrown in your face (the "well-regulated militia" aspect gleefully ignored). In a rational universe, we'd recognize that if personal liberty and self-defense were the goal, owners of guns would be trained up and recorded ("well regulated militia") as well as organized ("necessary to the security of a free state"). And despite the fact that the 2nd amendment was created before we had a standing army. a "militia" would follow any rational civil defense model. The fact that we totally infringe the right of felons to own guns shows that some things aren't inviolate. Legally speaking, you need a license to operate walkie talkies you buy at Radio Shack. You need a license to cut hair. You need a license to fish for trout. But somehow a license for a handgun is a bridge too far.
Sensible legislation already exists. Before anyone in the U.S. can purchase any firearm, in any state, they must undergo a full background check. You cannot buy a firearm if you: Have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
When it comes to handguns, almost every state has requirements for carrying pistols, which often include requirements for training, supervised range time, and, yes, more background checks. When people start wringing their hands about needing more legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, I immediately know that they're just spouting bullshit and don't have a clue what they are talking about. We already have sensible legislation. What we don't fucking have is adequate care for our mentally ill. We also don't have a society that has any resemblance of economic parity, and one that demonizes 50% of its population for being the wrong gender. Gun control is just a shibboleth. The real key to dealing with gun violence is not the guns, but the underlying mechanisms leading to their misuse.
I repeat: This is a national requirement, not state. Most states impose their own, additional conditions; in my case, simply to purchase ammunition for hunting, I had to pass a secondary background check and pass two courses, one involving hunting and one on gun safety. Are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Are a fugitive from justice;
Are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Are illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Are subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Dude. At the ripe old age of 16 I responded to a Craigslist ad, drove to a trailer park, handed over $39 and purchased a new-in-cosmoline Norinco SKS. $60 and a quick drive to the surplus store later and I had a 30-round mag and 1400 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition. Sixteen. Somewhere in a safe in a trailer park in a cul-de-sac in the middle of the desert of northern New Mexico, there's a form where I lied about my age to a dude selling assault rifles through the little nickel. 
You'll get no argument from me in regards to us having a shameful mental health system in the US. -Vastly underfunded and systematically whittled away to nothing in regards to care/hospitalization. I wonder, in another post @swedishbadgegirl@ pointed out gun/gun violence statistics in Sweden vs the US and it was night and day. Is this because Sweden has both less guns and better mental health care/screening? Also, you respond to the "waiting period" aspect but not to the types of guns comment. Do we need more than simple hand-guns/rifles/shotguns etc? If so, why?
Because the difference is purely cosmetic. Nobody is arguing for unrestrained possession of automatic weapons -- aka "machine guns." And the difference between your basic hunting rifle and what people refer to as "assault rifles" is simply a difference in stock, sight and magazine. Imma gonna hold my nose and, as much as I hate to, link to Fox News. Because even a broken clock is right sometimes, and this is one of Fox's moments: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/gun-debate-what-makes-gun-assault-rifle/
If the difference is "purely cosmetic" why is it that nearly every state limits magazine capacity to five if you're hunting? Ever ripped through a 30-round mag with an AR-15? I have. It's hella faster than ripping through three ten-round mags. And that's when you give a shit about what you're shooting at, not doing the dumb-ass Rambo trigger finger trick. Peruse the North Hollywood Shootout for other "cosmetic" differences; those "cosmetic" differences are why the cops in my 'hood sport S&W 40s and Benelli M4s and AR-15s and body armor. So now, when somebody gets pulled over by the airport, they're covered by the same amount of firepower and the same attitude as Marine Recon in Baghdad. Which is hardly "cosmetic."The patrol officers were armed with standard Beretta 92F and Beretta 92FS 9mm pistols and Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38 caliber revolvers, while officers including James Zaboravan also carried a 12-gauge Ithaca Model 37 pump-action shotgun. The officers' weaponry could not penetrate aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu, which covered most of their bodies and provided more bullet resistance than standard-issue police Kevlar vests. The robbers' heads were the only vital organs that were unprotected, but most of the LAPD officers' service pistols had insufficient range and relatively poor accuracy. Additionally, the officers were pinned down by the heavy spray of gunfire coming from the robbers, making it difficult to attempt a headshot.