Gun Control

[GGT]

After so many deadly gun violence events (Columbine, VA Tech, Mount Hood, Rep. Gifford, Batman movie premiere just to name a few).....isn't it time we had a REAL discussion about REAL Gun Control?

That doesn't mean a repeal of the US Second Amendment, denying people the Right to own a gun (whether it's for self-protection or game-hunting). Anyone who boils it down to that....doesn't really want to have an honest discussion about guns, ammunition, and public safety.

Something's very wrong, and something's got to change.

[Catgrrl]

*VA Tech not UVA*

[ar81]

After so many deadly gun violence events (Columbine, UVA, Mount Hood, Rep. Gifford, Batman movie premiere just to name a few).....isn't it time we had a REAL discussion about REAL Gun Control? That doesn't mean a repeal of the US Second Amendment, denying people the Right to own a gun (whether it's for self-protection or game-hunting). Anyone who boils it down to that....doesn't really want to have an honest discussion about guns, ammunition, and public safety.

Just read this...

Will the NRA kill a global arms trade treaty?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...s-trade-treat/

[Ominous Gamer]

We all love when somewhat famous people have opinions...

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
The 100,000 number is slightly untrue, he posted a correction to that somewhere.

[wiggin]

100k Americans die every year from gun violence? Uh, no.

edit: Sorry, I didn't see your last line. But really, that's a ridiculously egregious error.

He also briefly dismisses two very cogent points that he doesn't have a long response to: that if there really was a well-trained, armed populace, the death toll would likely have been lower, and that legalization and regulation is often better than criminalization (like, say, drugs). I'm not saying this invalidates the position that more gun control in the US would, on the balance, be a good thing, but he doesn't really do a good job of supporting his position here.

edit2: One last comment while I'm thinking about it. Most of those gun-related deaths Alexander overcounts are caused by handguns; yet his post seems to be about banning assault weapons. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but not really going to address the majority of our gun-related crime. Just sayin'.

[Flixy]

I'd also like to point out that the 'he could by it on the black market' thing is not entirely true, Breivik didn't manage to buy illegal weapons IIRC. It's at least another hurdle to take.

[Timbuk2]

Jason Alexander, a decent tweet there.

Just one thing I'll pick up on;
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution.

Why, when discussing national issues in the States, and gun control is only one amongst many, do people not realise that the constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago by men who lived in an entirely different world from the one we inhabit now. What applied then does not apply now, or applies differently.

Tear the stupid thing up and start again, with something relevant.

[wiggin]

Jason Alexander, a decent tweet there.

Just one thing I'll pick up on;
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution.

Why, when discussing national issues in the States, and gun control is only one amongst many, do people not realise that the constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago by men who lived in an entirely different world from the one we inhabit now. What applied then does not apply now, or applies differently.

Tear the stupid thing up and start again, with something relevant.

Much as I agree there are issues with the US Constitution, I think it is a remarkable document which has resulted in a surprisingly resilient structure of government. There is already a process of amendment to make changes, and I think that is likely to be a better solution than doing away with it wholesale in favor of a new constitutional convention. Most of the document is still very much applicable today by any metric.

Also: do you really want the bozos who run our country these days to be able to make a new constitution for the country?

[Ominous Gamer]

100k Americans die every year from gun violence? Uh, no.

edit: Sorry, I didn't see your last line. But really, that's a ridiculously egregious error.

Found the correction:

the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks.

[ar81]

100k Americans die every year from gun violence? Uh, no.

edit: Sorry, I didn't see your last line. But really, that's a ridiculously egregious error.

He also briefly dismisses two very cogent points that he doesn't have a long response to: that if there really was a well-trained, armed populace, the death toll would likely have been lower, and that legalization and regulation is often better than criminalization (like, say, drugs). I'm not saying this invalidates the position that more gun control in the US would, on the balance, be a good thing, but he doesn't really do a good job of supporting his position here.

edit2: One last comment while I'm thinking about it. Most of those gun-related deaths Alexander overcounts are caused by handguns; yet his post seems to be about banning assault weapons. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but not really going to address the majority of our gun-related crime. Just sayin'.

Combine 20% of mental illness in US with 40% of US homes owning a gun. The result: Batman incident. The only way to regulate a mentally ill maniac with an assault weapon is to get him out of the street.

The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...11218b-eng.htm

A bit old, but not sure that it has changed a lot...

[wiggin]

OG: For the deaths, how many were homicide? Less than half (about 11k homicides to 16.5k suicides). Far more common cause of death? Traffic deaths and injuries. Obviously, we could outlaw alcohol again to deal with traffic deaths but I have my doubts it would work any better than last time; I question whether outlawing guns (or assault rifles) would be that much better.


Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. The issue isn't guns per se, it's how our society interacts with (and views) guns. Plenty of countries have widespread assault rifle ownership in homes and ridiculously low violent crime. Plenty of countries have laws on the books outlawing some or all guns, and they have significant violent crime. The issue isn't really guns - or people - it's our society. Fix the way we view and handle guns, and a lot of these issues will resolve themselves.

That's not to say that careful regulation of the US gun market doesn't have its points - I think it should be intelligently regulated. And it's very possible that in our current situation, that regulation might best include sharp limits on ownership of assault rifles. But let's have an honest conversation on this - it's ridiculous to say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', but it's also ridiculous to look at the instrument of the crime and not the criminal.

Combine 20% of mental illness in US with 40% of US homes owning a gun. The result: Batman incident. The only way to regulate a mentally ill maniac with an assault weapon is to get him out of the street.

6% of US adults are estimated to have a serious mental illness.

[Timbuk2]

Also: do you really want the bozos who run our country these days to be able to make a new constitution for the country?

You have a point.

That's not to say that careful regulation of the US gun market doesn't have its points - I think it should be intelligently regulated. And it's very possible that in our current situation, that regulation might best include sharp limits on ownership of assault rifles. But let's have an honest conversation on this - it's ridiculous to say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', but it's also ridiculous to look at the instrument of the crime and not the criminal.

... which is surely the gist of what the tweet is about?

Ergo; Let us, as reasonable people, have a reasoned discussion about this ...

[wiggin]

... which is surely the gist of what the tweet is about?

Ergo; Let us, as reasonable people, have a reasoned discussion about this ...

He says that people should be reasonable, and then he spends the entire post being unreasonable. Notably, making a caricature of his opponent's political views without actually have a discussion about them.

He also misses the point - the majority of gun-related deaths are from handguns, and he explicitly says that handguns are a-ok. If he really wants to reduce gun-related deaths (rather than respond to a news event), he should focus on the real problems, not a pet cause. I don't disagree that assault rifles may be part of the issue, but they aren't the major problem here.

[ar81]

The issue isn't guns per se, it's how our society interacts with (and views) guns.

So the issue isn't atomic bombs per se, it's how our society interacts with (and views) them? If you think it is Ok to let people to have guns (including mentally ill), why not letting Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons? After all a former CIA agent interviewed in HardTalk at BBC said Iran poses no nuclear threat, as Iran president is not the ruler and the elder council behind him is very conservative and not willing to use them.

6% of US adults are estimated to have a serious mental illness.

Your figures must be outdated. Look at this:

One in five adults in the U.S. had a mental illness in 2010, with people ages 18 to 25 having the highest rates, according to a national survey.

Source: Mental illness struck one in five U.S. adults in 2010: Report
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...th-us-20120119

[Ominous Gamer]

serious

[Enoch the Red]

Your figures must be outdated. Look at this:


Source: Mental illness struck one in five U.S. adults in 2010: Report
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan...th-us-20120119

I think you should have read both wiggins post and your own source more closely.

About 5% of adults in the U.S. had a serious mental illness in 2010, a slightly higher number compared to 2009 (4.8%). That 18- to 25-year-old age group again had the highest incidence at 7.7%, and those 50 and older had the lowest at 3.2%. Women again outpaced men, 6.5% to 3.4%. Those with a serious mental illness have trouble functioning, which affects their key life activities.

6% of US adults are estimated to have a serious mental illness.

[Omega]

Where's our lovable libertarian nut Cain when we need him?

[Veldan Rath]

Jason Alexander, a decent tweet there.

Just one thing I'll pick up on;
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution.

Why, when discussing national issues in the States, and gun control is only one amongst many, do people not realise that the constitution was drawn up hundreds of years ago by men who lived in an entirely different world from the one we inhabit now. What applied then does not apply now, or applies differently.

Tear the stupid thing up and start again, with something relevant.

We have an amendment process. They can use it.

To tear the thing up and start again? So your in favor of the US having an insurrection/rebellion?

[Dreadnaught]

After so many deadly bee stings, isn't it time to have a REAL discussion about bee regulation?

[Timbuk2]

To tear the thing up and start again? So your in favor of the US having an insurrection/rebellion?

You're.

And to tear it up was just so much hyperbole, obviously.

My inferrence was toward the outdated right to bear arms and the Second Amendment.

But why try to change anything at all eh? Everything's fine. America is still the same place it was over 200 years ago and should be governed in the same way.

[Kazuha Vinland]

100k Americans die every year from gun violence? Uh, no.

edit: Sorry, I didn't see your last line. But really, that's a ridiculously egregious error.

He also briefly dismisses two very cogent points that he doesn't have a long response to: that if there really was a well-trained, armed populace, the death toll would likely have been lower, and that legalization and regulation is often better than criminalization (like, say, drugs). I'm not saying this invalidates the position that more gun control in the US would, on the balance, be a good thing, but he doesn't really do a good job of supporting his position here.

edit2: One last comment while I'm thinking about it. Most of those gun-related deaths Alexander overcounts are caused by handguns; yet his post seems to be about banning assault weapons. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but not really going to address the majority of our gun-related crime. Just sayin'.

After so many deadly bee stings, isn't it time to have a REAL discussion about bee regulation?

This side of people infurious me. It's just like he was talking about - that a person is completely inapt, nearly retarded so, to even at least start on a compromise. Instead he has to scan through the entire ordeal with cautious eyes, in order to be able to find something to criticize, and twist the whole matter around. Can't you fucking see the point here? That assault rifles shouldn't be in the hands of civilians? Not that the death toll is 50K or 25K instead of 100K. Not that if the entire world was potentially well trained arms wielders, it would contradict his belief. And not that it only helps a minority of the entire picture. It. still. fucking. helps.

Thank you.

[Flixy]

I think over here for a weapon permit you need to be a member of a gun club. What are your thoughts on that? It gives some extra control (the club sees how stable you are), and doesn't seem to conflict with 'well regulated militia'.

It's hard for me to consider the situation anyway. Over here there's no hunting, and nobody honestly needs a gun for protection. It's only for enthousiasts, and for sports. Still I can see no real reason why assault rifles should not be banned, or anythinh besides hunting rifles or handguns for protection. Name one legal use for an assault rifle.

Other than personal fun, of course (i bet it's fun to have and shoot one) because that's obviously a bad reason to keep it legal. I bet driving and shooting a machine gun, or even a tank, would be massive fun, but they're not legal. Hell, drugs are fun, and you guys are having a war on drugs..

[Veldan Rath]

You're.

And to tear it up was just so much hyperbole, obviously.

My inferrence was toward the outdated right to bear arms and the Second Amendment.

But why try to change anything at all eh? Everything's fine. America is still the same place it was over 200 years ago and should be governed in the same way.

You can stuff your grammar police up your ass.

And did you NOT read the part where I noted the amendment process? Or was that too inconvenient for you personal narrative that people who want the country to FOLLOW the Constitution means we don't want anything to change?

[Timbuk2]

This side of people infurious me. It's just like he was talking about - that a person is completely inapt, nearly retarded so, to even at least start on a compromise. Instead he has to scan through the entire ordeal with cautious eyes, in order to be able to find something to criticize, and twist the whole matter around. Can't you fucking see the point here? That assault rifles shouldn't be in the hands of civilians? Not that the death toll is 50K or 25K instead of 100K. Not that if the entire world was potentially well trained arms wielders, it would contradict his belief. And not that it only helps a minority of the entire picture. It. still. fucking. helps.

Thank you.

What he said ^

I think over here for a weapon permit you need to be a member of a gun club. What are your thoughts on that? It gives some extra control (the club sees how stable you are)

Same here. Club membership is a requirement.

It's hard for me to consider the situation anyway. Over here there's no hunting, and nobody honestly needs a gun for protection. It's only for enthousiasts, and for sports. Still I can see no real reason why assault rifles should not be banned, or anythinh besides hunting rifles or handguns for protection. Name one legal use for an assault rifle.

Killing-people-per-minute rate is higher, innit?

Other than personal fun, of course (i bet it's fun to have and shoot one) because that's obviously a bad reason to keep it legal. I bet driving and shooting a machine gun, or even a tank, would be massive fun, but they're not legal. Hell, drugs are fun, and you guys are having a war on drugs..

To be fair, the War on Drugs (TM) isn't solely an American endeavour. I doubt any other nation spends anything like as much as the US does per capita tho.

You can stuff your grammar police up your ass.

Arse.

And did you NOT read the part where I noted the amendment process? Or was that too inconvenient for you personal narrative that people who want the country to FOLLOW the Constitution means we don't want anything to change?

Which hits the nail on the head.

No change means your inordinately high death/injury-by-guns rate will continue.

[Veldan Rath]

Which hits the nail on the head.

No change means your inordinately high death/injury-by-guns rate will continue.

Are you purposefully not understanding me? It can be changed...it's called an amendment.

[Flixy]

Are you purposefully not understanding me? It can be changed...it's called an amendment.

Well yes, the problem is that there is a massive part of the US who opposes it. I also don't see how it needs to be amended for more control. Let's face it, changing this amendment is impossible in the current political climatem or at least I don't see how.

Same here. Club membership is a requirement.

Also for hunting rifles? And the spree shootings you have had, where they members or did they have illegal guns?

Killing-people-per-minute rate is higher, innit?

I did say 'legal'! Army can have em, they can legally kill people.

To be fair, the War on Drugs (TM) isn't solely an American endeavour. I doubt any other nation spends anything like as much as the US does per capita tho.

I know, but a) most other countries don't have the same loose gun control, the ones that have a somewhat functioning government anyway, and b) we're not in it, at least not on soft drugs. PS it is telling when Mexican drug cartels get most of their guns from the US... (And don't give me that shit argument that those guns are illegal anyway - they did enter the system legally at some point).

Arse.

Which hits the nail on the head.

No change means your inordinately high death/injury-by-guns rate will continue.

He does have a point in the sense that you need to follow the constitution (or any law) until it is changed. The sense of the thread is of course, what should be changed, and is a constitutional amendment necessary?

BTW, our full constitution was revised in the 80s to modernize it, reformulating articles, using uniform legal language, etc.

[ar81]

I think you should have read both wiggins post and your own source more closely.

A normal person under the right conditions may become a threat. Even a common problem of anxiety and stress may end up in a massive killing. For example, the case of Chilean embassy in Costa Rica, where a policeman was targeted with bullying and he ended up killing everyone. That policeman never had any mental problems at all.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has backed gun control measures in the past, said on Monday that additional laws would not have stopped last week's massacre in a Colorado movie theater. "Our challenge is not the laws, our challenge is people who, obviously, are distracted from reality and do unthinkable, unimaginable, inexplicable things," Romney said.

Source: Romney says new gun laws would not "make a difference"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86M1DR20120723

So you have guns in 4 of 10 homes, and 20% of mental illness (or 6%). Is he saying that it is easier to heal mental illness than having a ban on guns? If we think that 2% of mentally ill are dangerous, and you have 6% of mental illness in 300 million people, that is 360 000 people, more than the amount of US soldiers who are fighting a war. How much deficit would it cost to heal those people or just feed them? It is cheaper to ban guns.

[Flixy]

A normal person under the right conditions may become a threat. Even a common problem of anxiety and stress may end up in a massive killing. For example, the case of Chilean embassy in Costa Rica, where a policeman was targeted with bullying and he ended up killing everyone. That policeman never had any mental problems at all.

I think you mean, no recognized mental problems.

[Aimless]

Seriously, do you guys even really need a militia?

[Veldan Rath]

Well yes, the problem is that there is a massive part of the US who opposes it. I also don't see how it needs to be amended for more control. Let's face it, changing this amendment is impossible in the current political climatem or at least I don't see how.

You have stumbled upon it then. If a Massive Part of the US opposes gun control...what do you think should happen? Tyranny of the Minority?