I thought we could put some of the bad blood behind us and start fresh. I think I've struck something of a compromise here. Anyway, the other thread is a great debate and one that belies the notion that all liberals are anti-gun and anti-second amendment.
So here's my two cents:
I think this issue doesn't have to be so complicated. Everyone knows what the second amendment says. The SCOTUS held, and most people believe, that the second amendment is not an absolute right to bear arms. Even if people don't know they agree, they do.
After all, if the government doesn't have the right to control access to and possession of arms, then every citizen would have the absolute right to own ANY arm - even those used by the military.
Clearly we as a society do not agree that this is the case. Few people argue that people should be able to own tanks, bombs, anti-aircraft weapons, etc. Anytime anyone argues that the second amendment is absolute, simply put them in that corner and have them battle their way out. If they don't concede that the government has the right to control arms, then they must necessarily concede that anyone should be able to - in theory - possess any military weapon (including WMD). They'll either concede to limitations on the second amendment or they'll look completely barking mad.
As for the extent to which the government controls arms, that is left to the democratic process. The SCOTUS simply held that the government had the right to do so. There have been several challenges to this opinion, but none of them have been heard by the SCOTUS. Therefore, the prior opinion still stands and is the governing interpretation of the second amendment. If people are ever ready to seriously consider a weapons ban, the democratic process will take care of it. Until then, we have to debate the extent to which the government can control guns, not whether or not the government has the right to control guns.
A great source for more information and detailed citations.
Since rational people concede the right of the government to control arms, we have to look at the most effective way to do that.
This is not my idea and doubtless others in this thread have already posted some version of it, but if we are ever to have actual "gun control" we have to have something of a uniform standard regulating licensing, sale and purchase of guns in this country.
We currently have a patchwork of laws and differing levels of control spread across 50 states. People can buy guns through local newspapers, at gun shows, at yard sales, etc. without any form of background check or other regulation. A criminal doesn't have to resort to the black market to secure a weapon without the government's knowledge. They can do it legally by simply attending a gun show or answering a classified ad.
Can we ever eliminate the use of guns in violent crime? Absolutely not. Can we make a serious dent in our out of control gun related death rate. Without a doubt. We could actually use car ownership as a model for how to successfully regulate guns.
1.) License all gun owners. They have to complete an intensive training session teaching them about the laws governing the legal use of guns, all regulatory requirements (licensing, personal sale of gun, etc) and the proper handling and use of a gun. A person would have to pass a test similar to a driver's test before obtaining a license.
2.) Require a deed of ownership for all guns. These deeds would be registered with the state in the same way that cars are currently registered. This would reduce the availability of black market guns by controlling the private sale. If I sell a car, I have to transfer the deed to the new owner. Before the transfer of the gun deed could be completed, the new owner would have to pass a background check (Brady style) as well as be a license holder. If you sell a gun illegally or fail to report a stolen gun, all records would remain in your name and thereby make you potentially liable for any crime committed with that gun. The onus would be on the current owner to make sure all laws are fully complied with.
3.) Obviously regulate the commercial sale of guns and require all sales to comply with the above standards. This goes for gun shows too.
4.) All states could tweak these rules to be more fitting for their populations, however, they would have to comply with these basic standards or some close approximation.
Look, it's painfully obvious that the current approach to this issue in the US is very inadequate. With the above regulations, no lawful, honest citizen has to worry about being deprived of his/her right to own a gun (assuming this right even exists). If people have a problem with the existence of such regulations, then they obviously dispute the SCOTUS ruling and are therefore a member of the aforementioned "barking mad" contingent.
