C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.
Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.
We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.
We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).
The concern isnt only for rights alone but due process, limited government, and the requirement that the government manifest a compelling interest to preempt or limit a right based on objective, documented evidence.
Compromise does not entail compelling citizens to forfeit their civil liberties to the detriment of the Nation as a whole.
That someone might commit a violent act with a gun is not a compelling reason to restrict citizens access to firearms, that a given firearm is perceived by the general public as unnecessary or dangerous is also not a compelling rationale.
Connecticut has some of the more restrictive gun laws and regulations in the Nation theres little else the State could do to prevent yesterdays tragedy save that of an outright ban, which we all know would be un-Constitutional.
The fact that Connecticuts gun laws failed is evidence that more laws are not the answer, that more restrictions or even a ban would not have kept the shooter away from a firearm.
As with everyone else, gun owners are entitled to due process with regard to limiting their rights, they can not be subject to a presumption of guilt and punitive measures simply because of a perceived danger. There is no evidence that owning a gun, collecting guns, or using guns for hunting or at the range in any way poses a danger to the general public.
The Second Amendment isnt solely about owning guns, its part of the consistent Constitutional theme of limited government, the right of the people to be free from government excess, and the preeminence of the rule of law.
However difficult, this issue must be addressed in the context of reason over emotion, facts over ignorance, and the desire to realize an actual, effective solution.