Since the Newtown shooting, the debate over gun contril has escalated sharply; not surpisingly, many people have taken that position that we need more gun control laws because the current laws did not prevent said shooting. Many ideas have been bandoed about, all of which many, if not all, of the following in commonn: - The proposal would not have stopped the Newtown shooting - The proposal will not stop another Newtown shooting - The proposal will not pass thru Congress - The proposal, if passed into law, infringes on the right to arms and therefore violates the Constitution Put simpler, the proposals will serve no good purpose, has no real chance of being put in place, and will be struck by the court. One of the most important things here is "no good purpose" -- it is impossible to argue that a gun contol law is a means to affect a compelling state interest, and is the least restrictive means to that end, when the law in question will have not have the desired effect on the interest in question. Now, the importance of this -should- be obvious, but it will surely be lost on most. The only sound conclusion here is that the reactionaries who want more gun control simply, and midlessly, seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding and are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push their agenda.