This is purely in the speculative dimension, since the mere mention of gun control seems to turn a lot of people into ranting savages. But wouldn't the commonsense approach to gun laws be to legalize all hunting rifles and shotgun-type weapons while banning handguns? Rifles can easily be used for home defense, but they're nearly impossible to conceal in public. And nobody's going to be hunting with a handgun. Of course this still wouldn't please the psychos who want a society where everyone carries a piece on them at all times, but it would effectively neutralize the hunting and home defense issue, which seems to be the main sticking point for a lot of people.

The word "sacred" primarily decribes holiness or divinity, so it kind of bothers me that that word is used to describe gun ownership. I doubt that God, in any way you wish to understand Him/Her, smiles down on Americans' obsession with guns. Personally I'm fairly liberal and i also support gun ownership, but "sacred"? Get your priorities straight!

I'm thinking how since Roe v Wade, the anti-abortion people have made it nearly impossible to get an abortion in many parts of this country, but crafting legislation that gets around the court ruling, by using harassment and intimidation and by relying on the nut cases who actually use violence against abortion clinics. Now can't we do something like that to gun dealers and gun owners?

It amazes me how many people treat the 2nd amendment as somehow different from all the others. The loony left want freedom of the press, privacy, freedom from warrantless wiretapping, and on and on, but treat the 2nd amendment as the red headed bastard stepson. They would scream bloody murder if laws were passed regulating newspapers as guns have been regulated, or if ink were controlled as they want to crontrol ammo.

Then the righteous right foam at the mouth about guns, yet see no problem with having our very own King George breaking every other amendment and treating Congress as nothing more than a speed bump.

If the 2nd is not an individual right, if it doesn't allow people to own and carry any individual gun (no crew weapons, no shoulder fired missiles, no felons or mentally insane), then there should be no freedom of the press or freedom of speech either, search warrants would be unnecessary, and our ancestors may as well have pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for nothing.

Because right now our strategy is to fight addiction by pointing guns at drugs, duh.

Chicago was pretty heavily armed when alcohol was illegal.

The NRA is being stupid. Most of their members support and enable the War on Drugs.

But it's the violent consequences of the War on Drugs that motivate people to try to ban guns.

Go tell that to the NRA. Like they're going to get the clue. NOT.

There seems to be a relationship, doesn't there? This is the country we live in--let 'em have guns and then electrocute them if they get caught shooting someone with them. It's pretty much lowest common denominator humanity, and that's what Americans want. But hey--I don't care anymore. I view gun owners as a sort of vermin. I stay away from them, I don't let my children go to their houses, and when they shoot each other, I say good riddance, shoot another one.

The loony right wants their legal guns, but they're so stupid -- they keep pointing guns at drugs and pointing guns at drugs and pointing guns at drugs.

Meanwhile the drugs don't go away, but the number of guns on the street increase tenfold and everyone feels terrified of gun violence and wants to ban guns.

What the right wing solution?

Point more guns at more drugs, duh.

"But wouldn't the commonsense approach to gun laws be to legalize all hunting rifles and shotgun-type weapons while banning handguns? "

The problem is that a number of locales (both in America and abroad), including Washington, D.C. as I understand it, have the absurd restriction that said rifle/shotgun must be locked and unloaded while in your home. That effectively prevents its use in home defence unless you know through some uncommon set of circumstances that you are going to be the victim of a crime beforehand. Most crimes I would suggest surprise the victim by and large.

Most households in the West now have zero children present in the house, so the 'please think of the children' argument, which is used also reflexively, is simply unsound. A gun owner with kids indeed has tough decisions to make, but this specific circumstance should not become a basis for laws which apply to everyone.

As a lesbian and agnostic, I particularly value a right to own a firearm because I like many minorities cannot be 100% certain of the police coming to my aid or more ominously being the agent of oppression themselves. As a woman a firearm is moreover the best negator of male (men committing the vast, vast majority of violent crimes) physical prowess I can think of.

I am still amazed by supposed 'liberals' in America who have lost all sight of the rebellious spirit upon which the country was founded and ignore the need (and thus right) of vulnerable minorities to have charge of their own defence. So many people on the left deplore law-and-order (get tough on crime, etc.) politics yet turn around through restrictions on gun ownership and place themselves completely at the mercy of the same police for personal protection.

Thank you for showing that conservatives do not have a monopoly on absurd, dehumanising comments.

But hey--I don't care anymore. I view gun owners as a sort of vermin. I stay away from them, I don't let my children go to their houses, and when they shoot each other, I say good riddance, shoot another one.

I'm so touched by your superior humanity, I'm about to tear up right now.

Can I nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize?