I am having a problem with the entire gun thing and think some things are being missed. The first is the second amendment itself. It goes like; "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." I am confused about the "well regulated militia" thing. Apparently this is completely ignored, then, again, maybe not. On the other hand apparently Congress CAN regulation guns? (then all gun owners are part of a well regulated militia?) Basically, as far as I can tell the congress is, by the constitution to regulate said militia (are are not doing a very good job of it).

Then there is the NRA thing. The NRA thing is a creature of the gun manufacturers. Dues paying members are there to help the gun manufacturers pay for the NRA but the organization itself remains in the hands of the gun manufacturers. Basically, this is not so much about having and using guns but SELLING MORE guns, and related stuff. The problem is, I think, with the members who think that the organization is for, and run by, themselves - they are, sadly, mistaken. I am basing this on the simple fact that the organization has received, literally, millions of dollars from the gun manufacturers. Then there is the money that the US army 'contributes' as well (this one has always given me some bit of humor). Just seems reasonable that them that pay for something get to have their say in that something.

It also seems, as far as I can tell, that we have decided to yet again ignore what other nations have done successfully, and the simple fact that regulation works (Australia is a fairly recent example of gun regulation which worked). The arguments against seem a bit like distributing nuclear bombs and, then, if somebody sets one off its the person who set it off at fault? (ie. its not the fault of the bomb so its gotta buy the doer)

Just saying............